I.  1  HPvA.RY 


Theological   Seminary 

PRINCETON,    N.  J. 

BR  45  .B35  1874 
Bampton  lectures 


A 


1  ►  >  y  '^ 


,^r'^-' 


■re    , 


\.. 


m^ 


feX.; 


iOT" ..  v^ 


*^C>/;■ 


^/'V.. 


.3 


,jf>;. 


,»;',< /Iff'     • 


t* 


y     0 


THE 

RELIGION  OF  THE  CHRIST 


By  the  Same  Author, 
THE  WITNESS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  TO  CHRIST. 
Being  the  Boyle  Lectures  for  1868.     8vo. 

THE  WITNESS  OF  ST.  PAUL  TO  CHRIST. 

Being  the  Boyle  Lectures  for  1869. 

W^ith  an  Appendix,  on  the  Credibility  of  the  Acts,  in  Reply  to  the 
Recent  Strictures  of  Dr.  Davidson.     Svo. 

THE  WITNESS  OF  ST.  JOHN  TO  CHRIST. 

Being  the  Boyle  Lectures  for  1870. 

With  an  Appendix  on  the  Authorship  and  Integrity   of  St.   John's 
Gospel  and  the  Unity  of  the  Johannine  Writings.     Svo. 

RIVINGTONS  :  LONDON,  OXFORD.  AND  CAMBRIDGE. 


THE 


RELIGION  OF  THE  CHRIST 

ITS  HISTORIC  AND   LITERARY  DEVELOPMENT 

CONSIDERED  AS  AN  EVIDENCE 

OF  ITS   ORIGIN 


C!)e  15ampton  Lectures  for  1874 


BY  THK 

Rev.    STANLEYXEATHES.    M.A. 


POTT,    YOUNG,    AND    COMPANY 

COOPER  UNION,  FOURTH  AVENUE 

MDCCCLXXIV 


EXTRACT 

FROM  THE  LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT 

OF    THE    LATE 

REV.   JOHN    BAMPTON, 

CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 


"  I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to 

"  the  Chancellor,  Masters,  and  Scholars,  of  the  University 
"  of  Oxford  for  ever,  to  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular 
"  the  said  Lands  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents 
"  and  purposes  hereinafter  mentioned ;  that  is  to  say,  I 
"  will  and  appoint  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Univer- 
"  sity  of  Oxford  for  the  time  being  shall  take  and  receive 
"  all  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof,  and  (after  all 
"  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made)  that 
"  he  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  eight 
"  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  established  for  ever 
"  in  the  said  University,  and  to  be  performed  in  the 
"  manner  following  : — 

"  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  upon  the  Eirst  Tuesday 
"  in  Easter  Term,  a  Lecturer  may  be  yearly  chosen  by  the 
"  Heads  of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room 
"  adjoining  to  the  Printing-House,  between  the  hours  of 
"  ten  in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach 
"  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at 
"  St.  Mary's  in  Oxford,  between  the  commencement  of  the 


vi         Extract  from  Cano7i  Bampton's  Will. 

"  last  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the  end  of  the  third  week 
"  in  Act  Term. 

"  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity 
"  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the 
"  following  subjects — to  confirm  and  establish  the  Chris- 
"  tian  faith,  and  to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — 
"  upon  the  divine  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures — upon 
"  the  authority  of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers, 
"  as  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church — 
"  upon  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
"  — upon  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost — upon  the 
"  Articles  of  the  Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in  the 
"  Apostles'  and  Nicene  Creed. 

"  Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity 
"  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed,  within  two 
"  months  after  they  are  preached ;  and  one  copy  shall  be 
"  given  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  ITniversity,  and  one  copy 
"  to  the  Head  of  every  College,  and  one  copy  to  the 
"  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be  put 
"  into  the  Bodleian  Library ;  and  the  expense  of  printing 
"  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of  the  Land  or 
"  Estates  given  for  establishing  the  Divinity  Lecture  Ser- 
"  mons ;  and  the  Preacher  shall  not  be  paid,  nor  lie 
"  entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are  printed. 

"  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shaU  be 
"  qualified  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons  unless 
"  he  hath  taken  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least,  in 
"  one  of  the  two  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge ; 
"  and  that  the  same  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity 
"  Lecture  Sermons  twice." 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

PREFACE ix 


LECTURE    I. 

ANTICIPATION  OF   THE    CHRIST  IN  HEATHEN  NATIONS 


LECTURE    n. 
THE  CHRIST  OF  JEWISH  HISTORY 47 


LECTURE    III. 
THE   CHRIST  OF   THE  PSALMS 93 


LECTURE    IV. 

THE   CHRIST  OF  PROPHECY 135 


LECTURE    V. 
THE   CHRIST  OF   THE  GOSPELS 177 


viii  Co7itents. 


LECTURE    VI. 

I'AGE 

THE   CHRIST  OF   THE   ACTS 223 


LECTURE    Vn. 
THE  CHRIST  OE    THE   PAULINE  EPISTLES 265 

LECTURE    VIIL 
THE  CHRIST  OF   THE  OTHER   BOORS  .        .        .        .        .        .      3U 


PREFACE. 


We   can  do   NOTHiNa   against   the  Truth,   but   for    the 
Truth. — St.  Paul. 

Sic  2[Bci6()eit  ifl  nur  in  ber  2Baf)rI;cit. — Goethe. 


PREFACE. 

The  object  of  the  following  Lectures  has  been  to 
unfold  the  siornificance,  too  often  overlooked  or  for- 
gotten,  of  the  name  Christianity,  which  is  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  Religion  of  the  Christ.  As 
a  matter  of  historic  fact,  the  name  by  which  this 
religion  is  known  does  not  lead  us  back  so  much  to 
Christ  as  its  founder  in  the  way  that  Muhammad- 
anism  leads  us  back  to  Muhammad  for  its  founder, 
as  it  does  to  the  Christ  as  the  object  and  substance 
of  the  earliest  ascertainable  faith  of  the  people  called 
Christians.  Whatever  uncertainty,  real  or  imagi- 
nary, may  attach  to  the  actual  origin  of  this  belief, 
there  is  and  can  be  no  question  whatever  as  to  its 
earliest  expressions.  These  survive  to  us  in  literary 
monuments,  which  are  imperishable  and  undoubted. 
The  four  great  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  themselves  a 
treasury  of  evidence  in  this  respect,  and  they  must 
continue  to  be  so  until  it  can  be  shown  on  equal 
evidence,  which  as  yet  is  not  producible,  that  they 


XI 1 


Preface. 


represent  only  one  phase,  and  that  a  partial  and 
sectional  phase,  of  early  Christianity. 

It  is,  however,  commonly  admitted  now  that  we 
need  not  limit  the  genuine  remains  of  the  great 
Apostle  to  these  four  letters  ;  and  it  is  certain,  what- 
ever our  opinion  as  to  the  formation  of  the  canon  of 
the  New  Testament,  or  the  degree  of  authority 
attaching  to  it  when  formed,  may  be,  that  the  Keli- 
gion  of  the  Christ,  or  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  is  not  only  common  to  every  document  com- 
prised in  it,  Init  is  alike  the  very  backbone  and 
essential  framework  of  all  the  documents. 

We  may  take  it  therefore  as  a  position  which  is 
unassailable,  that  the  distinguishing  mark  of  Chris- 
tianity, from  the  very  first,  trace  it  back  as  far  as 
we  can,  was  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
So  manifestly  true  is  this  statement,  that  the  mere 
expression  of  it  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  truism. 
And  yet  it  is  not  by  any  means  such  ;  because,  what 
is  not  involved  in  the  fact,  undenied  and  undeniable, 
that  a  vast  society  was  called  into  existence,  and 
held  together,  by  the  confession  and  belief  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  and  that  but  for  such  a  confession 
and  belief  this  society  would  and  could  have  had 


Preface.  xiii 

no  existence  ?  There  are  involved  at  least  tliese  two 
principles — 1.  That  the  conception  of  the  Christ, 
whether  right  or  wrong,  was  a  reality,  and  a  reality 
fraught  with  the  mightiest  consequences ;  and  2.  That 
the  features  of  the  human  life  of  Jesus  were  adequate 
to  setting  in  motion  the  machinery  which  was  latent 
in  the  Christ-conception. 

And  as  to  the  strength  and  truth  of  this  position, 
the  evidence  of  the  New  Testament,  whatever  the 
date  and  authorship  of  its  various  parts  may  be,  is 
conclusive  and  unimpeachable.  Taking  the  very 
widest  possible  margin,  we  may  say  that  within  the 
first  century  and  a  half  of  our  era  this  simple  for- 
mula, Jesus  is  the  Gh/rist,  had  called  into  existence 
the  whole  of  that  literature,  whatever  its  value, 
which  is  comprised  in  the  New  Testament.  Within 
that  period  of  time,  from  which  we  must  of  course 
deduct  the  thirty  years  of  our  Lord's  own  life,  there 
had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  come  into  existence  the 
four  Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  the  Apostoli- 
cal Epistles,  and  the  Revelation  ;  that  is  to  say,  we 
have  certain  literary  monuments  which  must  have 
come  into  existence  between  a.d.  30  and  a.d.  150, 
and  their  actual  existence  is  the  problem  to  be  solved. 
Practically,  this  period  may  be  considerably  lessened, 


xiv  Preface. 

No  one  wishes  to  prove  the  existence  of  any  Chris- 
tian document  prior  to  a.d.  50,  and  it  is  making 
unnecessary  concessions  to  suppose  that  even  the 
latest  book  of  the  New  Testament  is  so  late  as  a.d. 
150.  Within  a  period,  then,  probably  at  the  most 
of  seventy  or  eighty  years,  our  existing  documents 
were  produced.  To  what  was  their  production 
owing?  Solely  to  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ.  It  is  alike  impossible  to  eliminate  this  fun- 
damental tenet  from  any  one  of  the  books  in  ques- 
tion, and  to  account  for  their  existence  without  pre- 
sujDposing  its  belief. 

The  religion  or  belief,  then,  of  which  the  books 
may  be  taken  as  the  actual,  and  in  some  sense  the 
natural  expression,  may  be  called  the  Religion  of  the 
Christ.  The  immediate  result  of  that  religion  or 
belief  was  the  creation  of  a  unique  literature,  for 
which  no  parallel  can  be  found  in  the  literary  his- 
tory of  the  world.  The  literature  was  the  product, 
and  is  the  witness  to  the  existence,  of  a  particular 
society  known  to  us  also  from  extraneous  sources  as 
the  Christian  society,  whose  very  name  brings  us 
back  again  to  the  idea  which  was  latent  in  every 
one  of  the  books,  that  the  Christ  had  come,  and 
that  Jesus  was  the   Christ,     It  matters  not  now 


Preface.  xv 

whether  the  society  authenticates  the  books,  or  the 
books  authenticate  the  society.  To  a  certain  ex- 
tent the  books,  it  must  be  allowed,  have  a  testimony 
of  their  own ;  they  are  a  fair  index  of  the  society 
which  created  them,  and  their  relative  position  with 
respect  to  other  books  which  were  produced  by  the 
society  is  a  proof  of  the  estimate  in  which  they 
were  held  by  it ;  while  in  the  case  both  of  the 
society  and  the  books  it  was  not  possible  for  either 
to  have  existed  without  the  previous  acceptance  of 
the  underlying  principle  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
This  was  at  once  the  germ  of  the  society's  exist- 
ence, the  means  of  its  cohesion  and  support  when 
formed,  and  the  root-principle  to  which  the  books 
bore  witness,  and  to  which  alone  they  owed  their 
being. 

Not,  however,  that  the  maintenance  of  this  prin- 
ciple was  the  direct  object  of  all  the  books.  It  was 
so  with  the  four  Gospels  only.  We  may  say  of  them 
that  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  written  was  to 
proclaim  Jesus  .as  the  Christ.  St.  John  said  of  his 
own  record  of  events,  Tliese  are  written  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.^  And  the 
same  might  have  been  affirmed  by  the  other  Evan- 

^  St.  John  XX.  31. 


xvi  Preface. 

gelists.  But  with  the  rest  of  the  books  this  is  not 
so  much  the  purpose  as  the  cause  of  their  being 
written.  In  every  one  the  position  is  accepted  as  a 
foregone  conclusion  which  can  only  be  referred  to 
incidentally,  but  wdiich  is  none  the  less  present  to 
the  writer's  mind  and  to  the  minds  of  all  for  whom 
he  writes.  Eliminate  from  him  and  them  the  belief 
in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  you  destroy  the  peculiar 
and  essential  features  of  their  existence. 

And  this,  it  must  be  observed,  is  altogether  inde- 
pendent of  the  abstract  truth  of  the  principle  they 
accepted.  Here  we  have  this  obvious  literary  fact, 
the  creation  and  existence  of  a  new  and  original 
literature  solely  in  consequence  of  the  belief  in  Jesus 
as  the  Christ.  The  rise  of  the  Christ-religion  pro- 
claimed itself  by  the  rise  of  a  new  literature  which 
gathered  round  the  central  thought  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.  This  is  an  undoubted  fact,  independent  alike 
of  the  genuineness  and  authenticity  of  the  several 
books  and  of  the  actual  truth  of  their  central 
thought. 

Nor  can  it  for  a  moment  be  maintained  that  the 
movement  thus  expressing  itself  was  trivial  or  un- 
important.    We  cannot  pass  it  by  as  an  insignificant 


Preface.  xvii 

or  an  uninteresting  phenomenon.  As  a  matter  of 
fact  the  movement  which  so  early  produced  these 
literary  monuments,  and  resulted  in  what  we  call 
Christianity,  has  lasted  to  the  present  day ;  it  has 
played  a  most  prominent  part  in  modern  history ; 
by  some  means  or  other  it  supplanted  the  dominion 
of  the  Csesars  and  established  itself  on  the  imperial 
throne ;  it  has  penetrated  all  the  framework  of  our 
social,  political,  and  educational  existence,  and  in- 
tertwined itself  with  our  civilisation,  morals,  and 
government.  Moreover,  it  is  even  now  from  time 
to  time  forcing  itself  into  inconvenient  prominence, 
and  superinducing  complications  with  which  it  is 
by  no  means  easy  to  deal,  and  suggesting  problems 
it  is  hard  to  solve,  and  yet  not  easy  to  put  by. 

The  fact,  therefore,  of  the  rise  of  this  Christ- 
religion  and  Christ-literature  derives  unquestionably 
an  additional  significance  from  the  nature  of  its  sub- 
sequent history.  It  cannot  be  treated  as  a  merely 
transient  or  passing  incident.  Whether  or  not  it  was 
calculated  to  be  followed  by  consequences  so  tre- 
mendous, these  are  the  consequences  by  which  it 
was  followed.  It  is  possible  that  the  haze  of  dis- 
tance may  have  concealed  from  view  many  of  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  rise  of  this  reliiriou 


xviii  Preface. 

which  it  must  be  hopeless  for  us  ever  to  discover ; 
but  the  results  produced  are  independent  of  this 
obscurity,  and  are  what  they  are,  neither  more  nor 
less,  even  though  somewhere  in  the  first  origin  of  the 
movement  there  may  have  been  something  faulty,  or 
which,  at  all  events,  science  now  regards  as  unsatis- 
factory. 

In  the  long  run,  however,  it  is  a  sound  maxim 
that  the  work  proves  the  workman,  and  it  is  an 
inference  not  altogether  hasty  or  unreasonable  that 
a  movement  such  as  that  of  the  Christ-religion, 
which  has  wrought  so  marvellously,  cannot  have 
been  inherently  defective  from  the  first.  No  human 
agency  or  combination  of  human  agents  could  have 
sufliced  to  produce  the  effects  which  have  notoriously 
been  produced,  and  therefore  the  effects  may  be  esti- 
mated not  as  the  designed  production  of  one  or  of 
many  individuals,  but  as  those  great  problems  of 
history  which  are  fraught  with  their  own  signifi- 
cance and  demand  their  own  solution.  We  may 
hold  our  judgment  in  suspense  as  to  whether  this 
particular  work  is  of  Nature  or  of  God,  but  at  all 
events  it  unquestionably  is  not  of  man. 

And  the  alternative  is  named  advisedly,  of  Nature 


Preface.  xlx 

or  of  God,  because  this  with  regard  to  Christianity- 
is  really  the  issue  at  stake.  If  the  actual  phenomena 
of  the  rise  of  the  Christ-religion  can  be  accounted 
for  naturally,  then  there  is  an  end  to  its  claim  to  be 
in  any  sense  the  special  exponent  of  the  Divine  will. 
Nature  may  be  indeed  another  name  for  God,  but 
God  and  Nature  are  not  convertible  terms,  and  to 
attempt  to  make  them  so  is  to  destroy  the  special 
characteristics  of  both.  God  may  have  spoken,  and 
doubtless  has  spoken,  by  all  the  religions  of  the 
w^orld,  but  He  has  done  so  in  a  negative  way,  by 
showing  us  where  they  failed  to  apprehend  the  ful- 
ness of  the  truth,  or  to  supply  the  actual  craving  of 
man's  heart.  If  He  has  spoken  by  the  Eeligion  of  the 
Christ,  He  has  done  so  in  a  special  and  a  positive 
way,  which  differs  alike  in  the  answer  given  to  the 
wants  of  humanity  and  in  the  manner  of  His  giving 
it.  If  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ  can  be  resolved  into 
a  mere  expression  of  natural  religion — a  mere  varia- 
tion of  other  expressions — then  it  forthwith  comes 
to  an  end,  because  there  is  no  room  for  the  Christ- 
function,  and  no  meaning  in  the  Christ-idea;  then,  in 
that  case,  God  and  Nature  are  absolutely  identical, 
and  what  is  done  by  Nature  is  done  by  God,  and  what 
is  done  by  God  is  only  done  by  and  in  and  through 
Nature ;  and  then  Christ  is  an  anomaly  in  nature, 


XX  Preface. 

interfering  not  only  with  the  free  action  of  her 
laws,  but  antagonistic  in  the  very  principle  and  idea 
of  His  existence,  as  proposing  to  discharge  a  function 
for  which  nature  has  no  need. 

It  must  be  observed,  however,  that,  supposing 
God  to  have  spoken  by  all  the  religions  of  the  world, 
and  to  have  spoken  in  the  same  sense  by  Christianity 
too,  then  the  message  of  Christianity  must  be  in 
virtual  harmony  with  the  message  of  other  religions  ; 
it  may  surpass  or  excel,  but  it  cannot  contradict 
them.  Now,  the  question  whether  or  not  it  does 
contradict  them  is  unhappily  not  a  matter  of  opinion, 
but  a  matter  of  fact,  and  capable  of  conclusive 
demonstration.  The  history  of  Christianity  from 
the  first  has  been  a  history  of  conflict — of  conflict, 
however,  not  sought,  but  encountered ;  and  the  se- 
verity of  this  conflict  was  originally  felt  in  the  contact 
of  Christianity  with  the  elder  religion  from  which  it 
sjDrang,  or  at  least  with  those  who  were  the  professed 
and  devoted  adherents  of  that  religion.  Nor  has 
Christianity  proved  to  be  more  acceptable  to  the 
other  religions  with  which  it  has  been  brought  in 
contact — whether  with  the  paganism  of  Greece  and 
Kome,  or  with  Islam,  in  the  middle  ages,  or  with 
Brahmauism   or   Buddhism   in  the  East.      It  has 


Preface.  xxi 

never  been  received  as  an  ally,  but  always  been  re- 
jected as  a  foe.  AVe  may  assume,  therefore,  tbat  the 
message  of  Christianity  is  not  in  accordance  with, 
but  oj^posed  to,  the  message  of  other  religions.  There 
is  a  point  where  it  comes  into  collision  with  and 
contradicts  them  on  their  own  showing ;  and  this  is 
the  point  which  is  expressed  in  the  foundation  and 
central  idea  of  it  as  the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ.  As 
long  as  Christianity  is  content  to  be  placed  on .  a 
par  merely  with  other  religions,  there  is  no  offence ; 
it  is  w^hen  she  asserts  her  inherent  superiority  be- 
cause of  her  Divine  election,  it  is  when  she  takes  her 
stand  upon  Jesus  as  the  Christ  or  chosen  of  Cod, 
that  the  cause  of  offence  arises.  Then  it  is  that 
the  Master's  words  begin  to  verify  themselves,  as 
they  so  often  have,  /  am  not  come  to  send  j^eace 
hut  a  sword} 

And  Christianity  may  historically  be  regarded 
as  the  Religion  of  the  Christ.  The  earliest  monu- 
ments of  it  show  that  its  most  essential  feature  was 
the  recognition  of  the  Christ  character  of  Jesus. 
But  when  we  come  to  examine  this  Christ  character 
we  find  it  was  by  no  means  peculiar  to  Christianity, 
but  was  in  fact  the  legitimate  and  special  offspring 

St.  Matt.  X.  34,  35.     St.  Luke  xii.  49,  51. 


xxii  Preface. 

of  Judaism,  so  that  Christianity  grew  like  a  young 
and  tender  plant  out  of  the  soil  of  Judaism.  This 
also  is  a  fact  which  cannot  be  denied.  If  the 
Christ  idea  had  not  existed  in  Judaism,  the  actual 
foundation  of  Christianity  would  have  been  want- 
ing, and  its  rise  would  have  been  impossible.  The 
Religion  of  the  Christ,  therefore,  may  be  regarded  as 
reaching  both  before  and  after  the  time  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the  very  earliest 
records  of  the  Jewish  nation  either  exhibit  traces  of 
the  Christ  idea  or  manifest  features  which  supplied 
the  actual  foundation  of  the  idea.  The  Religion  of 
the  Christ,  then,  is  not  merely  that  which  we  com- 
monly understand  by  Christianity,  but  much  more 
the  complete  phenomenon  of  the  idea  regarded  as  a 
whole,  and  embracing  the  earliest  traces  of  it,  as 
well  as  its  full  development  in  the  writings  of  the 
New  Testament.  And  this  phenomenon  is  a  literary 
fact  established  by  literary  monuments  extending 
on  the  lowest  possible  computation  over  a  period  of 
a  thousand  years,  from  the  earliest  document  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  latest  in  the  New.  It  is  alike 
impossible  to  account  for  the  literary  existence  of 
the  New  Testament  without  assuming  the  reality  of 
a  Christ  element  in  the  Old,  and  to  account  for  its 
existence   on   the   assumption   that   it   is   a    mere 


Preface.  xxiii 

exaggeration  and  the  natural  development  of  that 
Christ  element. 

It  is  obvious,  moreover,  that  these  two  positions 
are  mutually  destructive.  If  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament  can  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition 
of  the  intensity  and  fanatical  ardour  of  the  Messianic 
anticipations  of  the  Disciples,  then  those  anticipa- 
tions presuppose  a  sufficient  foundation  for  them  in 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  inasmuch  as  they 
can  be  referred  to  nothing  else ;  we  must  acknow- 
ledge the  existence  of  a  Christ  idea,  which  can  only 
have  been  derived  from  them.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
we  may  assume  the  non-existence  of  any  such  ele- 
ment, then  it  is  clear  that  the  New  Testament  can- 
not have  been  caused  by  the  exaggerated  develop- 
ment of  this  element.  Or  if,  once  more,  it  is  affirmed 
that  the  Disciples  had  indeed  these  anticipations  in 
an  extravagant  degree,  but  that  there  was  no  valid 
foundation  for  them  in  the  Scriptures,  which  can  be 
critically  explained  otherwise,  then  we  must  admit 
that  historical  phenomena  which  are  most  remark- 
able, and  literary  phenomena  which  are  unique,  were 
alike  the  direct  and  natural  consequences  of  a  mis- 
apprehension so  complete,  of  a  blunder  so  palpable 
and  gross. 


xxiv  Preface. 

It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  actual  historic  rise 
of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  the  historic  and 
literary  results  of  that  l)elief,  may  legitimately  be 
allowed  to  have  a  retrospective  value  as  evidence  of 
the  true  meaning  of  the  Scriptures.  It  is  hardly 
possible  to  account  reasonably  for  the  character  and 
prevalence  of  the  Messianic  anticipations,  of  which 
we  have  literary  proof  in  the  first  century  of  our 
era,  on  the  assumption  that  these  anticipations  were 
not  warranted  by  the  language  of  Scripture — were 
even  a  deviation  from  it.  At  all  events,  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  must  be  held  responsible  for  their  exist- 
ence. It  is  surely,  therefore,  a  daring  course  to 
ado]3t  to  say  that  the  historic  result  was  one  which 
ought  never  to  have  been  produced.  May  we  not 
rather  say,  that  if  the  voice  of  God  is  ever  to  be 
heard  in  history,  it  may  be  heard  in  this  historic 
result  ?  And  is  it  not  a  further  confirmation  of  its 
actual  truth,  that  these  ancient  Scriptures,  even 
wdien  read  now-a-days  after  so  long  an  interval,  are 
still  found  to  be  replete  with  an  inexhaustible  trea- 
sury of  meaning  which  they  could  not  have  had 
for  their  original  possessors,  but  which  is  derived 
solely  from  their  relation  to  and  association  with 
Jesus  as  the  Christ  ?  If  He  has  thus  shown  Him- 
self the  light  of  prophecy,  may  we  not  infer  that 


Preface,  xxv 

His  was  the  liglit  for  which  prophecy  waited,  and  to 
wliich  it  was  designed  to  point  ? 

But  if  so,  nothing  can  be  more  obvious  than 
that  such  a  combination  of  results  is  not  to  be 
reckoned  as  the  product  of  nature.  Because  the 
only  interpretation  of  it  can  be,  that  this  is  the 
expression  of  personal  will  manifesting  itself  through 
the  results  of  history  and  the  facts  of  literature. 
Given  the  phenomena  of  prophecy  as  they  are,  and 
the  human  life  of  a  person  in  whom,  supposing  His 
Christ-character  to  be  a  true  one,  their  meaning  is 
not  only  realised,  but  intensified  and  heightened  to 
an  infinite  and  before  inconceivable  degree — is  it 
possible  to  regard  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  as 
an  •  insignificant  and  casual  incident  ?  If  it  is 
fraught  with  any  meaning  at  all,  the  meaning  is 
one  which  can  only  be  other  than  natural  and  above 
nature.  It  is  an  expression  of  God's  will  such  as  is 
not  elsewhere  found,  in  the  order  and  harmony  of 
the  natural  world,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  history, 
and  the  like  ;  it  is  expressive  of  moral  and  spiritual 
truths  which  are  not  to  be  derived  from  other 
sources,  and  it  teaches  lessons  which  nature  is  in- 
competent to  teach. 

h 


xxvi  Preface. 

Now  this  is  the  position  which  we  daim  for  the 
Religion  of  the  Christ.  It  finds  its  place  naturally 
amonoj  the  relio-ions  of  the  world,  for  it  was  the 
direct  descendant  of  one  of  the  oldest  of  them,  and 
it  has  been  brought  into  contact  with  all  of  them. 
But  it  stands  on  a  different  footing  from  all.  For 
no  religion  can  point  to  the  same  historic  and  literary 
development  which  the  Religion  of  the  Christ  can 
show.  In  no  other  case  has  the  supposed  fulfilment 
of  the  promises  of  an  earlier  religion  produced  any- 
thing like  the  phenomena  which  were  produced  by 
the  first  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ;  in  no 
other  case  has  the  similar  proclamation  of  such  a 
fact,  or  supposed  fact,  produced  within  fifty  years 
after  it  was  first  proclaimed  anything  like  the  literary 
phenomena  which  we  know  for  a  certainty  were 
produced  in  various  writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
These  two  features,  the  one  historic  and  the  other 
literary,  are  unique  in  the  case  of  the  Religion  of 
the  Christ.  May  we  not  then  fairly  claim  this 
historic  and  literary  development  of  the  religion  as 
a  patent  evidence  of  its  origin  ?  It  is  useless  to 
point  to  any  other  literary  monuments,  such  as  the 
Vedas,  the  Kuran,  or  the  like,  because,  independently 
of  the  inherent  and  intrinsic  difi'erence  of  their  sub- 
stantive message,  they  difi"er  fundamentally  in  the 


Preface.  xxvii 

known  circumstances  of  their  origin.  The  Kuran, 
no  less  than  the  Christian  books,  may  be  regarded 
as  the  literary  offspring  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but 
who  has  ever  found  in  Muhammad  the  analogue  or 
antitype  of  the  Jewish  Messiah,  and  who  would  for 
a  moment  compare  the  literary  origin  of  the  New 
Testament  with  that  of  the  Kuran  ?  One  was  the 
spontaneous  growth  of  circumstances,  and  the  pro- 
duct of  many  minds ;  the  other  was  the  deliberate 
production  of  a  single  mind  for  a  definite  and  de- 
liberate purpose.  To  confound  in  any  degree  the 
two  productions  would  be  to  lack  altogether  the 
faculty  of  discrimination — the  critical  faculty.  But 
if  their  literary  and  historic  difierence  is  so  great,  it 
is  impossible  that  the  two  religions  they  represent 
can  stand  on  the  same  basis.  To  imagine  that  they 
do  is  to  reject  the  evidence  of  facts. 

And  it  is  to  this  broad  evidence  that  we  point  in 
attestation  of  the  claims  that  were  undoubtedly  ad- 
vanced by  those  who  first  proclaimed  the  Eeligion  of 
the  Christ.  We  have  a  marvellous  historic  and  literary 
result  distinctly  traceable  to  no  other  cause  than  the 
supposed  fulfilment  in  a  particular  person  of  the  obvi- 
ous and  known  requirements  of  prophecy.  Of  the 
nature  of  this  fulfilment  we  are  to  some  extent  com- 


xxviii  Preface. 

petent  judges  ourselves.  According  to  one  view, 
the  degree  of  the  fulfilnient  is  only  to  be  regarded 
as  infinite  ;  it  is  continually  revealing  itself  to  every 
independent  student  and  disciple.  According  to 
another  view,  the  fulfilment  is  simply  nil  and  purely 
imaginary.  But  this  we  may  safely  affii-m,  that 
the  known  results  of  the  supposed  fulfilment  of  pro- 
phecy in  Jesus  of  Nazareth  cannot  be  accounted  for 
on  the  supposition  that  there  was  no  more  a2:)parent 
correspondence  between  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the 
character  of  the  Messiah  than  those  who  hold  this 
latter  view  would  have  us  believe,  or  on  the  assump- 
tion that  the  correspondence  was  unreal.  The  Gog- 
pels,  as  we  have  them,  which  point  to  this  corre- 
spondence, may  more  properly  be  regarded  as  the 
outcome  of  the  belief  in  Jesus  than  as  the  cause  of 
it.  The  belief  itself  is  still  to  be  accounted  for,  even 
if  we  reject  the  Gospel  view  of  the  character  of 
Jesus,  and  so  likewise  are  the  consequences  which 
followed  the  belief. 

It  is  important,  therefore,  to  remember  that  it  is 
not  merely  with  literary  monuments  that  we  have 
to  deal,  but  with  the  known  historic  fact  of  great 
results  produced,  of  which  the  literature  itself,  how- 
ever regarded,  is  the  surest  proof.     Can  the  suppo- 


Preface.  xxix 

sition  of  falsehood  in  the  character  and  claims  of 
Jesus  adequately  account  for  these  results  ?  Or, 
rather,  can  they  adequately  be  accounted  for  on 
this  supposition  ?     Certainly  not. 

There  must  have  been  other  causes  at  work 
which  we  are  at  a  loss  to  conjecture  for  these 
known  results  to  have  been  produced,  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  there  was  a  lie  in  the  alleged  character 
of  Christ ;  while,  on  the  supposition  that  His  charac- 
ter was  what  it  is  represented  to  have  been,  all  the 
phenomena  to  be  accounted  for  are  fully  explained. 

The  question  of  the  genuineness  of  particular 
books  is  altogether  a  separate  matter  to  be  decided 
on  other  grounds ;  but  it  would  appear  that  these 
considerations  are  still  of  weight,  however,  in  par- 
ticular cases,  this  question  of  genuineness  may  be 
determined. 

And  the  wholly  anonymous  character  of  the 
first  three  Gospels  would  seem  to  corroborate  this 
position.  That  the  first  Gospel  is  known  by  the 
name  of  St.  Matthew  does  not  pledge  us  to  establish 
his  traditional  right  to  be  the  author  of  it  before  the 
narrative  can  be  received  as  one  substantially  trust- 


XXX  Preface. 

worthy,  any  more  tliai]  it  can  be  justly  regarded  as 
a  claim  advanced  by  liim  to  bave  written  it.  And 
unless  it  can  be  shown  that  the  original  results  pro- 
duced by  the  preaching  of  Jesus  were  owing  solely 
to  the  publication  of  this  and  the  other  existing 
Gospels,  which  is  absurd,  it  cannot  be  maintained 
that  we  are  bound  to  substantiate  their  genuineness 
as  veritable  productions  of  the  men  whose  names 
they  bear,  before  we  can  insist  upon  or  appeal  to 
their  authority ;  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
acknowledgment  of  these  Gospels  from  a  very  early 
period  as  authentic  narratives  by  the  Christian 
society  can  be  proved,^  and  because  the  known 
existence  and  phenomena  of  that  society  cannot  be 
accounted  for  but  on  the  supposition  of  substantial 
identity  between  the  narrative  of  the  present  Gos- 
pels and  the  very  earliest  Gospel  narrative  that  was 
proclaimed.  The  existence  and  peculiar  features  of 
the  earliest  Christian  society  as  we  know  them  can 
only  be  explained  on  the  snjiposition  that  a  particu- 
lar story  was  everywhere  accej^ted,  the  central 
facts  of  which  it  is  easy  to  discover.  This  story 
was  unquestionably  proclaimed  by  the  first  disciples 
of  Christ ;  and  whether  the  record  that  we  have  of  it 
emanated  immediately  from  them  or  not,  it  is  abso- 

*  See  Dr.  Westcott  on  the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 


Preface.  xxxi 

lutely  impossible    that  it   should  be  substantially 
different,^ 

For  example,  it  is  impossible  that  the  story  of  the 
resurrection  should  not  have  been  a  substantive  part 
of  the  primitive  and  original  Gospel.  Wherever  St. 
Matthew  preached,  we  know  as  a  fact  that  this  is 
what  he  must  have  preached.  Whether  then  or  not 
he  wrote  the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name  is  a  matter 
of  secondary  importance,  compared  with  the  absolute 
certainty  there  is  that  his  testimony  on  such  points 
as  the  resurrection  and  Messiahship  of  Jesus  can- 
not have  been  intrinsically  divergent  from  that  of 

^  "  If  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew,  such  as  we  now  possess  it,  is 
undoubtedly  the  work  of  the  publican  who  followed  our  Lord  from 
the  receipt  of  custom,  and  remained  with  Him  to  be  a  witness  of  His 
ascension  ;  if  St.  John's  Gospel  was  written  by  the  beloved  disciple 
who  lay  on  Jesus'  breast  at  supper  ;  if  the  other  two  were  indeed 
the  companions  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  ;  if  in  these  four  Gospels 
we  have  independent  accovints  of  our  Lord's  life  and  passion,  mutu- 
ally confirming  each  other  ;  and  if  it  can  be  proved  that  they 
existed  and  were  received  as  authentic  in  the  first  century  of  the 
Christian  Church,  a  stronger  man  than  M.  Renan  will  fail  to  sliake 
the  hold  of  Christianity  in  England." — Froude,  Short  Studies,  i.  242. 

Of  St.  John's  Gospel  he  himself  observes  afterwards — "  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  defects  of  external  evidence  which  un- 
doubtedly exist  seem  overborne  by  the  overwhelming  proofs  of 
authenticity  contained  in  the  Gospel  itself." — Ihid.,  page  252. 

This  latter  is  a  very  considerable  admission.     If  it  is  granted 


xxxii  Preface. 

our  existing  record.  This  consideration,  wliicli  is 
perfectly  valid,  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  a 
doubt  thrown  on  the  genuineness  of  one  or  more  of 
our  existing  Gospels  is  inadequate  to  disprove  the 
essential  truth  of  the  Gospel,  because  certain  known 
effects  could  not  have  been  brought  about  but  by  an 
agency  in  all  material  and  important  points  identi- 
cal with  that  which  they  represent  and  express. 
When,  however,  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  any  such 
doubts  are  virtually  baseless  and  unwarrantable,  it 
is  satisfactory  to  know  not  only  that  the  main  issue 
is  independent  of  them,  as  it  really  is,  but  also 
that,  if  it  were  not,  they  are  not  deserving  of  the 

that  there  are  "  overwhelming  proofs "  for  the  Gospel  of  St.  John 
being  written  by  the  beloved  disciple  who  lay  on  Jesns'  breast  at 
supper,  then  we  have  in  the  admitted  genuineness  of  the  Gospel  a 
strong  ground  for  its  authenticity,  the  strongest  that  can  be  desired. 
It  may  be  a  matter  of  question  liow  far  the  credibility  of  the  ordi- 
nary events  recorded  in  the  other  Gospels  is  dependent  on  the  fact 
of  their  being  by  the  several  authors  whose  names  they  bear.  It 
is  certain  that  no  one  of  them  professes  so  much  of  itself.  But,  at 
all  events,  we  must  not  forget  that  there  are  certain  features  of  our 
Lord's  life  and  character  for  which  we  are  not  dependent  upon  the 
fact  tliat  St.  Matthew's  Gospel  was  written  by  St.  Llatthew,  or  St. 
Mark's  by  St.  Mark,  but  much  more  upon  the  known  phenomena 
of  an  early  Christian  society,  whose  very  existence  would  have  been 
impossible  without  the  underlying  framework  of  the  life  of  Christ, 
and  whose  phenomena  determine  within  certain  limits  wbat  tliat 
life  and  character  must  have  been. 


Preface.  xxxiii 

serious  attention  we   are   willing   to  bestow  upon 
tliem. 

In  like  manner,  when  it  is  asserted,  as  one  has 
heard  it  asserted,  on  ostensibly  high  authority,  that 
we  have  no  materials  for  a  critical  life  of  Christ 
because  the  evidence  is  not  adequate  to  showing 
that  our  present  Gospels  existed  as  they  are^  much 
before  a.d.  170,  one  is  naturally  disposed  to  in- 
quire, How  is  the  position  of  the  ordinary  Christian 
of  the  present  day  affected  by  any  such  statement, 
supposing  it  to  be  valid,  as  he  has  neither  the  time 
nor  the  power  to  determine  ?  And  here  likewise  the 
consideration  of  Christianity  as  the  Eeligion  of  the 
Christ  will  materially  assist  us.  Given  the  assump- 
tion that  w^e  cannot  rely  upon  the  detailed  facts  of 
our  Lord's  life  as  stated  in  the  Gospels,  because  the 
accounts  vary,  because  some  particulars  are  of  later 
accretion,  and  because  the  generally  miraculous 
character  of  the  narrative  is  alone  fatal  to  its  credi- 
bility— how  far  are  we  dependent  on  any  such 
assumption  ?     It  is  certain  that  the  earliest  form  of 

^  "  The  four  Gospels,  in  the  form  and  under  the  names  which 
they  at  present  bear,  become  visible  only  with  distinctness  towards 
the  end  of  the  second  century  of  the  Christian  era." — Froude, 
Short  Shcdies,  i.  248.      Small  edit. 


xxxiv  Preface. 

Christianity  was  directly  and  immediately  connected 
with  the  belief  in  and  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ.  This  position  is  absolutely  impregnable.  The 
evidence  of  it  is  documentary  ;  it  is  abundant,  it  is 
unvarying,  and  it  is  conclusive.  What,  then,  do  we 
know  of  the  Jesus  who  was  thus  accepted  as  the 
Christ  ?  We  know  that  He  was  crucified,  we  know 
when  and  where  and  under  what  circumstances  He 
was  crucified.  We  know  that  this  death  by  cruci- 
fixion, which  was  a  central  and  universally  common 
feature  of  the  belief  concerning  Jesus,  was  also  a 
feature  the  most  unpromising  for  the  proclamation 
of  His  being  the  Christ  to  be  built  upon.  And  yet 
the  two  are  found  uniformly  combined,  both  among 
the  Gentiles  and  the  Jews.  Now,  if  we  knew  no- 
thing more  of  Jesus  than  this  fact,  we  might, 
considering  what  we  know  of  the  faith  itself,  draw 
certain  inferences  which  would  not  only  be  legiti- 
mate but  inevitable.  For  instance,  we  should  be 
safe  in  concluding  that  the  Jesus  who  was  thus 
accepted  as  the  Christ  was  a  person  who  had  really 
lived.  His  death  also  on  the  cross  must  have  been 
a  fact.  The  reality  also  of  those  expectations,  what- 
ever they  were,  which  are  implied  in  the  epithet 
Clirist,  is  established  beyond  a  doubt ;  and  that  these 
expectations  had  been  the  net  historic  result  of  the 


Preface.  xxxv 

Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  is  a  remarkable  fact 
which  has  no  parallel.     We  can  point  to  no  other 
literature  which  has  produced  so  striking  and  mani- 
fest an  historic  result.     It  is  unique  in  the  history 
of  literature.     But,  further,  we  must  infer  also  that 
if  the  death  of  Jesus  was  an  unfavourable  basis  for 
the  establishment  of  His  claims  to  be  the  Messiah, 
then  the  features  of  His  personal  character  must 
have  been  such  as  to  counteract  all  these  unfavom^- 
able  conditions.     He  can  have   been  no  ordinary 
man.     There  must  have  been  very  remarkable  cha- 
racteristics attending  His  person   and   His  career 
which  alone  would  have  made  it  possible  that  He 
should  be  recognised  as  the  Messiah.     Under  the 
circumstances,  the  mere  fact  of  His  dying  the  death 
of  crucifixion  would  simply  have  been  fatal  to  it. 
There  is  evidence,  however,  to  show  that,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  instead  of  its  being  fatal  to  it,  this  was  the 
very  cause   of  His  being  so  recognised.     We  are 
compelled,   therefore,  to  the   inference   that   there 
must  have  been  something  very  remarkable  in  His 
life  or  in  His  death,  or  after  His  death,  to  account 
for  a  circumstance  so  anomalous  as  that  His  death 
on  the  cross  should  be  the  principal  cause  of  belief 
in  His  Messiahship,  or  at  least  an  element  insepa- 
rable from  that  cause,  whatever  it  might  be.     Con- 


xxxvi  Preface. 

sequently,  we  arc  safe  iu  the  conclusion  that  the 
personal  character  of  Jesus  was  unquestionable,  that 
He  must  have  been  pre-eminently  virtuous.  There 
is,  however,  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  the  cha- 
racter of  the  Messiah  was  not  one  that  the  disciples 
of  Jesus  had  invented  for  Him,  but  also  one  to  which 
He  Himself  laid  claim.  We  know  nothing  of  His 
history  if  we  do  not  know  that  He  claimed  to  be  the 
Messiah.  For  example,  we  cannot  account  for  His 
death  but  upon  this  supposition.  Consequently,  we 
have  these  three  elements  :  first.  His  known  death, 
secondly,  the  claim  which  we  must  assume  was 
advanced  by  Him  ;  thirdly,  the  integrity  of  personal 
character  essential  to  any  wide  recognition  of  the 
claim.  But  the  last  two  must  stand  or  fall  together. 
It  is  impossible  that  Jesus  should  have  claimed  to 
be  the  Messiah,  and  have  been  content  to  die  for  the 
claim,  and  yet  have  been  personally  upright,  if  He 
was  not  justified  in  advancing  the  claim.  In  that 
case  the  integrity  of  His  character  comes  to  an  end, 
and  the  only  estimate  we  can  form  of  it  is  one 
which  will  throw  Him  open  to  the  charge  of  gross 
and  deliberate  imposition.  We  must  determine, 
therefore,  whether,  in  the  face  of  the  evidence,  we 
are  prepared  to  form  this  estimate  of  the  personal 
character  of  Jesus.     With  regard,  however,  to  the 


Preface.  xxxvii 

elemeuts  without  wliicli  a  belief  in  His  Messialisliip 
could  not  have  been  established,  we  may  say  that 
while  His  death  on  the  cross  would  naturally  have 
been  fatal  to  that  belief,  it  would  also  materially  have 
corroborated  the  supposed  integrity  of  His  character 
if  His  character  had  previously  had  the  appearance 
of  blamelessness  ;  and,  coupled  with  the  fact  that  He 
had  openly  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  it  would  tend 
to  establish  its  integrity.  But  the  death  of  Jesus, 
together  with  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah,  which, 
combined  with  the  integrity  of  His  personal  cha- 
racter, it  seemed  to  establish,  could  not  alone  have 
given  the  impulse  to  that  belief  in  His  Messiahship 
which  we  know  to  have  been  so  widely  diffused.  We 
must  throw  in  the  announcement  of  His  resurrection, 
which  was  universally  made  and  within  the  Christian 
body  uniformly  believed.  Indeed,  when  all  things 
are  considered,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  the 
general  spread  of  the  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
without  supposing  that  it  was  mainly  occasioned  by 
the  announcement  that  He  had  risen  from  the  dead. 
The  question,  then,  we  have  to  decide  is  simply  this  : 
Is  it  more  easy  to  account  for  the  phenomena  of  the 
early  Christian  society  on  the  supposition  that  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus  was  a  reality,  or  on  the  oppo- 
site supposition  that  it  was  not  ?     And  in  reply,  it 


xxxviii  Preface. 

cannot  be  denied  that,  on  the  supposition  of  its  being 
a  reality,  all  these  known  phenomena  would  be  at 
once  and  amply  accounted  for ;  whereas,  on  the  sup- 
position that  it  was  not,  a  known  effect  is  left 
without  any  adequate  cause,  and  it  may  be  reason- 
ably doubted  whether  it  is  theoretically  possible  to 
account  for  it. 

For,  in  that  case  we  should  be  reduced  to  the 
admission  of  these  causes  as  really  and  efficiently 
operative  :  The  death  of  Jesus  ;  His  claim  to  be  the 
Messiah  ;  the  integrity  of  His  personal  character;  the 
belief  among  His  immediate  followers  that  He  had 
risen  from  the  dead  ;  and  the  announcement  persist- 
ently made  by  them  and  others  to  that  effect.  Of 
these  causes  the  death  of  Jesus  was  most  unlikely  to 
produce  belief  in  His  Messiahship,  as  we  have  seen  ; 
His  personal  claim  to  be  the  Messiah  was  not  likely 
to  be  more  operative  ;  the  integrity  of  His  personal 
character  alone  would  have  been  insufficient;  and 
therefore  we  are  compelled  to  assume  that  the 
known  phenomena  of  the  first  Christian  society 
were  produced  merely  by  an  intense  belief  in  that 
which  was  not  true.  That  is  to  say,  the  faith  of 
the  disciples  produced  results  which,  but  for  it, 
they  were  themselves  unable  to  have  produced. 


Pi^eface.  xxxix 

To  what,  then,  is  this  faith  of  the  disciples 
traceable  ?  To  suppose  that  they  were  intentional 
deceivers  is  impossible ;  we  can  only  imagine  they 
were  the  victims  of  delusion.  How  did  they  them- 
selves become  possessed  of  the  conviction  that 
Jesus  was  the  Christ  ?  Two  causes  are  at  once 
apparent — the  actual  teaching  of  Jesus,  and  His 
personal  character.  They  could  not  have  been  for 
any  considerable  time  in  His  society,  and  have 
arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  He  was  the  Christ, 
unless  His  personal  character  had  been  in  accord- 
ance with  His  claims.  Nor  would  they  have  been 
very  likely  to  adopt  the  notion  of  His  being  the 
Messiah  unless  it  had  been  encouraged  by  Him. 
When,  however,  they  had  seen  their  Master  expire 
on  the  cross,  there  must  have  been  an  end  to  all 
their  anticipations  about  Him,  for  it  was  precisely 
this  death  of  His  which  was  the  least  likely  to 
convince  them  of  His  Messiahship.  We  are  con- 
strained, therefore,  to  postulate  the  occurrence  of 
something  after  His  death  which  had  the  effect  not 
only  of  reviving  their  hopes,  but  of  establishing  on 
a  secure  basis  their  conviction  that  He  was  the 
Christ,  in  which  they  never  afterwards  wavered.  If 
this  was  not  His  resurrection,  it  was  at  all  events 
the  belief  common  to  all  of  them,  that  He  had 


xl  Preface. 

actually  risen.  His  resurrection,  however,  does  not 
appear  to  liave  been  an  event  for  which  they  were 
prepared ;  on  the  contrary,  it  took  them  one  and  all 
by  surprise ;  they  were  not,  it  seems,  without  diffi- 
culty brought  to  believe  in  it.  To  what,  then,  was 
this  belief  owing  ?  The  fact  of  the  resurrection 
would  at  once  account  for  it.  Can  it  be  otherwise 
accounted  for  ?  In  their  case  also,  therefore,  we  have 
certain  known  results  produced  which  point  us  to  a 
particular  cause,  but  are  not  easily  to  be  explained 
by  the  supposition  of  any  other  cause.  And  when 
to  these  results  we  add  the  others  equally  patent — 
of  the  peculiar  life  the  disciples  forthwith  adopted 
of  going  about  preaching  the  story  of  the  resurrec- 
tion, and  of  the  remarkable  consequences  which 
followed  their  preaching — it  becomes  by  no  means 
easy  to  accept  the  answer  that  the  belief  of  the 
disciples  is  a  sufficient  explanation  of  all  the  pheno- 
mena, on  the  hypothesis  that  the  resurrection  was 
not  a  fact,  when  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  had  it 
been  a  fact  there  would  remain  nothing  which 
required  to  be  accounted  for.  We  are  able,  then, 
to  determine  how  far  a  critical  life  of  Christ  is  an 
indispensable  preliminary  to  our  belief  in  Him. 
Even  on  the  assumption  that  we  had  no  materials 
for  such  a  life,  it  would  not  follow  that  belief  in 


Preface.  ilx 

Him  was  an  impossibility ;  for  it  is  certain  that  the 
results  which  actually  followed  the  first  proclama- 
tion of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  are  such  as  to  lead  us 
up  to  a  few  broad  and  definite  facts  as  their 
necessary  cause,  and  to  make  us  virtually  inde- 
pendent of  all  others.  Whether  one  blind  man  was 
healed  at  Jericho,  or  two,  may  be  more  or  less 
uncertain  ;  but  the  uncertainty  attaching  to  that 
event  is  no  measure  at  all  of  the  degree  of  positive 
knowledge  we  possess  as  to  the  death  of  Jesus  and 
the  prevalence  of  belief  in  His  resurrection. 

In  like  manner  we  are  enabled,  by  a  due  con- 
sideration of  the  historic  and  literary  phenomena  of 
the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  to  arrive  at  a  more  cor- 
rect idea  of  the  position  attaching  to  miracles  in 
the  scheme  of  revelation.  It  is  not  true  to  say  that 
"the  Kevelation  rests  upon  miracles,  which  have 
nothing  to  rest  upon  but  the  Revelation."  ^  The 
revelation  is  recorded  in  a  literature  which  presents 

^  "  Miracles,  of  the  reality  of  which  there  is  no  evidence  worthy 
of  the  name,  are  not  only  contradictory  to  complete  induction,  but 
even  on  the  avowal  of  those  who  affirm  tliem,  they  only  cease  to  be 
incredible  upon  certain  assumptions  with  regard  to  the  Supreme 
Being  which  are  equally  opposed  to  Reason,  These  assumptions,  it 
is  not  denied,  are  solely  derived  from  the  Revelation  which  miracles 
are  intended  to  attest,  and  the  wliole  argument,  therefore,  ends  in 
C 


xlii  Preface. 

features  altogether  luiiquc  tliat  no  concatenation  of 
purely  natural  causes  is  sufficient  to  account  for. 
Here  then  we  have  a  solid  basis  for  the  miraculous 
to  rest  on,  for  we  are  confronted  with  phenomena 
which  were  not  merely  exceptional  but  above  nature. 
It  is  not  this  or  that  detail,  this  or  that  text  or  ex- 
pression, which  cannot  be  explained,  but  the  vast 
and  complex  whole  is  so  remarkable  as  to  challenge 
to  itself  the  special  tokens  of  a  Divinely  ordered 
work.  We  have  the  appearance  of  an  historic  person, 
whose  position  in  history,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  whether 
rightly  or  wrongly,  has  been  determined  by  His 
relation  to  the  ancient  literature  of  His  country. 
That  literature  did  not  create  His  character,  but  it 
did  create  the  part  He  played  in  history.  Stupen- 
dous consequences  have  ensued  from  His  relation  to 
the  Scrij^tures.  These  consequences  themselves  are 
out  of  the  ordinary  course  of  nature.  They  may 
well   be   termed    miraculous.^       Had    there    been 

the  palpable  absurdity  of  making  the  Kevelation  rest  upon  miracles 
which  have  nothing  to  rest  upon  themselves  but  the  Revelation. 
The  antecedent  assumption  of  the  Divine  design  of  Revelation  and 
of  the  necessity  for  it  stands  upon  no  firmer  foundation,  and  it  is 
emphatically  excluded  by  the  whole  constitution  of  the  order  of 
nature,  whose  imperative  principle  is  progressive  development." — 
Supernatural  Religion,  ii.  480.      Longmans,  1874. 

1  "  When  the  man  of  science  can  find  a  natural  cause  he  refuses 


Preface.  xliii 

nothing  miraculous  in  the  Old  Testament,  the 
character  of  Jesus  and  the  Religion  of  the  Christ 
would  have  been  alike  impossible.  Had  there  been 
nothing  miraculous  in  the  person  and  character  of 
Jesus,  the  New  Testament,  as  a  mere  literary  pheno- 
menon, would  have  been  impossible,  and  so  would 
the  existence  of  the  Christian  church.  These  thinfrs 
singly  are  evidences  of  the  miraculous  only  short  of 
demonstration;  taken  together  they  furnish  the  com- 
pletest  possible  moral  proof  of  what  can  only  be 
regarded  as  a  miracle.  But  having  arrived  so  far,  it 
is  not  hard  to  see  that  what  is  miraculous  as  a  whole 
may  also  be  miraculous  in  its  parts.  What  is  in 
itself  miraculous  may  be  fraught  with  miracles. 
Any  one  of  such  miracles  may  be  beyond  the  reach 
of  scientific  proof,  and  must  be.^    The  resurrection  of 

to  entertain  the  possibility  of  the  intervention  of  a  cause  beyond 
nature." — Froude,  i.  234. 

By  all  means,  but  surely  the  converse  must  hold  good  likewise  ; 
and  when  no  natural  cause  can  be  discovered,  and  when  it  plainly 
does  not  exist,  then  let  i;s  admit  not  only  the  possibility  but  the 
fact  of  the  intervention  of  a  cause  beyond  nature.  It  is  that  which 
we  find  in  the  Religion  of  the  Christ. 

^  "  Every  thinking  person  who  has  been  brought  up  a  Christian 
and  desires  to  remain  a  Christian,  yet  who  knows  anything  of  what 
is  passing  in  the  world,  is  looking  to  be  told  on  what  evidence  the 
New  Testament  claims  to  be  received.  The  state  of  opinion  proves 
of  itself  that  the  arguments  hitherto  offered  produce  no  conviction. 
Every  other  miraculous  history  is  discredited  as  legend,  however 


xliv  Preface. 

Lazarus  at  this  distance  of  time  cannot  be  investi- 
gated, and  therefore  cannot  he  proved  ;  hut  who 
shall  say  that  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  was  beyond 
the  power  of  one  who  should  Himself  rise  from  the 
dead  ?  If  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  w\as  the 
ostensible  and  the  declared  spring  of  a  movement, 
which  in  all  its  features  cannot  be  accounted  for  on 

exalted  tlie  authority  on  which  it  seems  to  be  rested.  We  crave  to 
have  good  reason  shown  us  for  maintaining  still  the  one  great  excep- 
tion."— Froude,  i.  264. 

If  there  is  any  value  ia  the  considerations  now  offered,  it  is  plain 
that  the  whole  surroundings  of  Christianity,  in  its  known  historic 
and  literary  development,  are  so  remarkable  as  to  constitute,  at  all 
events,  a  suflS.cient  claim  to  our  most  earnest  attention.  When  we 
have  determined  the  amount  of  deference  that  is  due  to  its  moral 
and  spiritual  teaching,  then,  and  not  before,  it  will  be  time  to  decide 
about  its  miracles.  If  we  can  determine  that  the  authority  on  which 
this  teaching  rests  is  merely  human,  that  it  is  not  rooted  in  the 
Divine,  then  we  may  reject  the  miracles  by  which  it  is  accompanied 
as  human  likewise,  that  is  to  say  fictitious.  If  we  are  constrained 
to  admit  that  the  teaching  is  Divine,  that  the  circumstances  under 
which  it  was  communicated  and  the  method  of  its  communication 
were  highly  exceptional,  and  in  fact  unparalleled,  then  we  may  be 
willing  to  allow  not  only  that  the  revelation  affords  a  presumption 
in  favour  of  the  miracles,  but  also  that  the  miracles  themselves,  if 
true,  would  even  tend  to  confirm  the  revelation.  The  essential 
history  of  the  revelation,  in  all  its  bearings,  itself  involves  a  miracle, 
the  greatest  miracle  of  all.  If  this  miracle  is  rejected,  it  is  impos- 
sible that  any  other  can  be  received  ;  if  it  is  acknowledged,  it  may 
even  carry  others  in  its  train. 

Bearing  on  this  matter  are  the  thoughtful  words  of  ]\Ir.  Henry 


Preface.  xlv 

the  su^^position  that  it  was  unreal,  is  amply- 
accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  real ; 
we  have  then,  surely,  laid  in  history  a  substantial 
basis  upon  which  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  may 
rest,  upon  which  it  becomes  intelligible,  and  not 
only  intelligible  but  consistent.  The  resurrection 
of  Christ  carries  with  it  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus ; 
and  though  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus  does  not 

Kogers  in  his  recent  work  The  Superhuman  Origin  of  the  Bible,  which 
I  had  not  the  pleasure  of  reading  till  after  these  Lectures  were  in 
print,  but  in  which  I  am  thankful  to  find  so  many  of  the  sentiments 
expressed  in  them  confirmed.  "  As  to  those  more  extensive  exci- 
sions which  demand  the  surrender  of  all  that  is  supernatural  in  the 
Bible  (however  interfused  with  all  its  elements,  and  as  incapable  of 
being  rent  from  it  without  destroying  it,  as  the  system  of  bones  or 
arteries  from  the  human  body  without  destroying  that),  the  advocate 
of  the  Bible  wUl  justly  require,  before  even  listening  to  such  a 
demand,  that  science  shall  not  affirm,  but  demonstrate,  the  impossi- 
bility or  incredibility  of  mu-acles.  When  she  has  done  that,  I  for 
one  acknowledge  that  it  will  be  time  to  shut  the  book  as  a  hopeless 
riddle  of  fable  or  falsehood,  or  both, — which  it  will  be  hardly  worth 
while  to  open  again.  Meantime  he  who  admits,  in  any  degree,  the 
reasoning  in  these  lectures — namely,  that  the  Bible  is  not  to  be 
accounted  for  by  merely  human  forces,  ought  not  to  feel  much 
difficulty  in  this  last  matter  ;  for  if  he  concedes  a  revelation  at  all, 
in  which  are  discovered  truths  and  facts  undiscoverable  by  hmnan 
faculties,  and  conveyed  in  modes  and  forms  for  which  human  nature 
will  not  account — he  has  already  admitted  a  miracle — a  fact  as  much 
in  the  face  of  that  '  invariable  order '  of  nature,  and  '  those  immu- 
table series  of  antecedents  and  consequents '  on  which  the  objector  to 
miracles  insists,  as  any  that  can  be  conceived.     The  only  difference 


xlvi  Preface. 

prove  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  it  may  fairly  be 
regarded  as  a  link  in  the  chain  of  preparation  for  it, 
and  to  those  who  have  already  believed  in  a  risen 
Christ  it  comes  with  the  force  of  an  additional  con- 
firmation of  that  which  has  otherwise  been  found  to 
be  true.  Miracles  were  regarded  by  our  blessed 
Lord  as  a  subordinate  proof  of  that  mission  which 
He  was  content  to  rest  on  the  truth  of  His  spoken 
word  :  And  if  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe 
me  f  ^  but  though  subordinate  He  appealed  to  them 
as  a  valid  proof :  The  works  that  I  do  in  my  Father's 
name,  they  hear  witness  of  me.^  The  person  of 
Christ,  the  character  of  Christ,  the  teaching  of  Christ, 
must  ever  be  the  highest  evidence  of  Him.  If  that 
evidence  is  not  accepted  as  in  the  truest  sense 
miraculous,  in  the  truest  sense  Divine,  no  miracles 
can  suffice  to  prove  His  mission  ;  but  it  may  be  that 
the  truth  of  His  spoken  words  implies  also  the  truth 
of  His  accomplished  works;  and  if  so,  we  cannot  truly 
accept  Him  without  accepting  also  the  message  of 
His  works. 

is,  that  tlic  miracle  liere  has  been  wrought  in  the  sphere  of  mind, 
and  not  in  that  of  matter, — a  difference  which,  to  a  man  wlio  knows 
what  the  objection  to  all  miracles  logically  involves,  will  not  affect 
the  question."— pp.  422,  423. 

1  St.  John  viii.  46.  ^  x.  25. 


Preface.  xlvii 


It  remains  only  to  observe  tliat,  in  proportion  to 
the  value  of  the  evidence  wliich  the  historic  and 
literary  development  of  the  Religion  of  the  Christ 
supplies  as  to  its  true  origin,  will  be  the  prospect  of 
its  permanence  in  the  world.  If  this  religion  is  indeed 
Divine,  as  no  other  is  Divine,  then  it  cannot  die.  As 
Hooker  says,  "  Truth,  of  what  kind  soever,  is  by  no 
kind  of  truth  gainsaid."  We  are  therefore  in  no 
degree  careful  as  to  the  issue  of  the  various  ques- 
tions which  science  may  from  time  to  time  propose. 
It  is  possible  that  these  questions  can  receive  no 
conclusive  answer.  The  answer,  however,  so  far  as  it 
is  true,  must  be  consistent  with  the  Truth.  Or  they 
may  remain,  at  the  best,  nothing  more  than  theories 
which  are  but  partly  attested  by  facts.  How,  then, 
can  the  reality  of  that  religion  be  affected  thereby 
which  is  based  not  upon  theories  but  upon  facts? 
If  the  coming  of  Christ  was  the  explanation  of  a 
marvellous  literature  which  must  ever  remain  other- 
wise a  hopeless  enigma,  and  if  the  rise  of  Christian 
literature,  and  the  development  of  history  for 
eighteen  centuries  since,  have  tended  to  prove  and 
confirm  the  truth  of  that  explanation  as  nothing- 
else  can  prove  it,  here  is  a  manifest  and  gigantic 
fact  in  the  world's  history,  which  cannot  be  set 
aside,  however  it  may  be   interpreted.     There  is, 


xlviii  Preface. 

and  can  be,  no  consistent  interpretation  of  tins  fact 
l3ut  one.  It  is  impossible  to  contemplate  it  fairly 
and  deny  its  significance.  The  very  existence  of 
the  Religion  of  the  Christ  is  itself  a  message  from 
God.  No  discoveries  as  to  the  nltimate  origin  of 
man,  the  unity  of  the  human  race,  the  antiquity  of 
the  earth,  or  what  not,  can  avail  to  set  aside  that 
message.  On  these  and  other  points  it  is  possible 
we  may  be  mistaken.  As  to  the  meaning  of  the 
message,  if  indeed  it  is  from  God,  we  cannot.  At 
least  in  the  message  we  have  a  truth  which  may 
suffice  to  be  the  guide  of  life,  a  truth  that  we  can 
live  and  die  by.  Those  who  have  not  this  convic- 
tion may  hold  their  judgment  in  suspense,  and  live 
if  they  can  without  a  religion  they  can  trust,  un- 
decided about  everything,  and  chiefly  about  the 
nature  of  God  and  the  claims  of  Christ ;  but  to 
others  the  belief  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  we 
have  the  assured  fulfilment  of  the  promises  of  God 
will  be  evermore  the  pledge  that  they  shall  not  walk 
in  darkness,  hut  shall  have  the  light  of  Ufe} 

Such,  then,  as  it  seems,  is  the  inexhaustible 
siirnificance  of  that  name  which  in  the  wisdom  of 
God  was  joined  inseparably  to  the  human  appellation 

'  St.  Jolm  viii.  12. 


Preface.  xlix 


of  His  dear  Son  ;  and  as  long  as  Christianity  retains 
the  name  which  it  thus  derives  from  Him,  it  will  bear 
upon  its  surface  the  mark  of  its  Divine  origin,  the 
evidence  of  its  difference  from  and  su23eriority  to  all 
other  religions,  in  being  the  Religion  of  the  Christ, 
the  Religion  of  Him  whose  way  was  Divinely  pre- 
pared before  Him,  and  whose  goings  forth  have  been 
from  of  old,  from  everlasting} 

^   Micah  V.  2. 


89  St.  George's  Square,  S.W. 
September  1874. 


LECTURE    I. 

ANTICIPATION    OF    THE    CHRIST   IN 
HEATHEN  NATIONS. 


Thk  registering  of  doubts  liatli  two  excellent  uses  :  the  one,  that  it 
saveth  philosophy  from  errors  and  falsehoods  ;  when  that  which  is 
not  fully  appearing  is  not  collected  into  assertion,  whereby  error 
might  draw  error,  but  reserved  in  doubt  :  the  other,  that  the  entry 
of  doubts  are  as  so  many  suckers  or  sponges  to  draw  use  of  know- 
ledge ;  in  so  much  as  that  which,  if  doubts  had  not  preceded,  a  man 
should  never  have  advised,  but  passed  it  over  without  note,  by  the 
suggestion  and  solicitation  of  doubts,  is  made  to  be  attended  and 
applied.  But  both  these  commodities  do  scarcely  countervail  an 
inconvenience  which  will  intrude  itself,  if  it  be  not  debarred  ;  which 
is,  that  when  a  doubt  is  once  received,  men  labour  rather  how  to 
keep  it  a  doubt  still,  than  how  to  solve  it  ;  and  accordingly  bend 
their  wits.  Of  this  we  see  the  familiar  example  in  lawyers  and 
scholars,  both  which,  if  they  have  once  admitted  a  doubt,  it  goeth 
ever  after  authorised  for  a  doubt.  '  But  that  use  of  wit  and  know- 
ledge is  to  be  allowed,  which  laboureth  to  make  doubtful  things 
certain,  and  not  those  which  labour  to  make  certain  things  doubt- 
ful. Therefore  these  kalendars  of  doubts  I  commend  as  excellent 
things  ;  so  that  there  be  this  caution  used,  that  when  they  be 
thoroughly  sifted  and  brought  to  resolution,  they  be  from  thenceforth 
omitted,  discarded,  and  not  continued  to  cherish  and  encourage 
men  in  doubting. — Bacon,  Advancement  of  Learnivff. 


LECTURE    I. 

As  the  hart  jMuteth  after  the,  water  brooks,  so  panteth  my  soul  after 
thee,  0  God.— Ps.  xlii.  1. 

The  origin  of  Christianity  has  often  been  found  an  Permanent 
interesting  and  a  fruitful  subject  of  inquiry  in  our  Christi- 
time.  Many  treatises  have  been  written,  and  many  "'  ^' 
theories  advanced,  about  it.  Any  one  who  could 
invent  an  entirely  new  theory,  whether  plausible  or 
not,  would  probably  meet  with  many  persons  who 
would  be  willing  to  listen  to  him.  For,  whatever  may 
have  been  its  actual  origin,  there  can  be  no  question 
that  Christianity  in  itself  is  the  most  remarkable 
phenomenon  that  history  presents  to  our  contem- 
plation. It  has  already  far  outlived  in  its  duration 
the  utmost  limits  of  time  that  can  be  assigned  to 
the  dominion  of  ancient  Rome.  Though  its  position 
in  the  world  has  ever  been  one  of  antagonism,  and 
therefore  of  peril,  it  has  survived  the  most  desperate 
assaults  whether  from  without  or  from  within  ;  and 
now,  in  the  nineteenth  century  of  its  existence,  shows 
no  signs  of  a  slackening  interest  for  the  imagination, 
or  of  a  declining  influence  on  the  human  mind. 

r..         ^  B 


2  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

Reasons  Noi'  IS  it  liard  to  See  the  reason  of  tins.    For  Chris- 

tianity appeals  alike  to  the  deepest  instincts  and  the 
highest  aspirations  of  mankind.  It  lays  its  hand  upon 
the  moral  nature,  the  social  constitution,  and  the  un- 
defined and  mysterious  spiritual  sensibilities  of  man. 
It  concerns  itself  not  only  with  life  here,  but  pro- 
fesses also  to  have  the  promise  of  life  hereafter  ;  and, 
notwithstanding  the  almost  endless  variety  of  answers 
that  might  be  given  to  the  anterior  question.  What 
is  Christianity  ? — no  two  independent  minds  probably 
understanding  thereby  or  deriving  therefrom  ideas 
in  all  respects  identical — that  which  the  term  implies 
is  sufficiently  definite  to  be  easily  intelligible  to  all, 
however  widely  their  theoretical  conceptions  or  their 
individual  sympathies  may  diff"er. 

Compre-  Indeed,   it  is   no   slight   indication   of  the   fas- 

hensive-  .  .  .       ,    ,        ^^,     .      .        .  , 

ness  of  the  cmatiug  powcr  cxcrcised  by  Christianity,  that  men 
abandon  with  extreme  reluctance  their  personal  con- 
nection with  the  name  of  Christian.  Those  who 
have  broken  loose  from  all  commonly  received  and 
traditional  forms  of  belief,  and  those  also  who  live 
in  habitual  disregard  of  the  one  ordinance  which 
Avas  designed  from  the  first  to  be  the  mark  of 
Christian  fellowship,  are  yet  jealously  sensitive  as  to 
the  appropriation  of  this  name.  "  All  who  profess 
and  call  themselves  Christians,"  to  adopt  the  large- 
hearted  language  of  our  collect,  would  embrace  a 
considerable  number  that  could  not  conveniently  be 
assigned  to  any  recognised  denomination.     Some  of 


name. 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  3 

those  who  are  uncompromising  in  their  treatment 
of  many  things  that  large  bodies,  or  even  the  great 
mass  of  Christians,  hold  most  dear,  are  yet  second 
to  none  in  their  zeal  to  retain  the  name. 

We  have   no  wish  to  narrow   or  to  limit  the  Limited  by 

,    .  „  .  its  relation 

claim  of  any  man  to  be  so  who  desires  to  regard  to  chHst. 
himself  as  a  disciple  of  the  Son  of  man.  It  is  He 
to  whom  all  judgment  has  been  committed,  and 
with  whom,  therefore,  we  would  gladly  leave  it ; 
but  we  may  safely  observe  that  a  Christianity  which 
repudiates  Christ  is  a  contradiction  in  terms,  and 
that  consequently,  first  or  last,  the  doctrine  and  per- 
son of  a  Christ  must  be  a  prominent  feature  of  Chris- 
tianity, however  interpreted.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  origin  of  Christianity,  it  was  intimately 
associated  with  the  person  of  Christ,  for  Christianity  is 
the  religion  of  the  Christ.  Whatever  differences  may 
have  existed  between  the  teaching  of  Christ  and  the 
subsequent  developments  of  that  teaching  among 
His  disciples,  it  will  probably  not  be  denied  that 
the  impulse  known  as  Christianity  is  rightly  and 
directly  traceable  to  His  teaching  and  influence.  At 
all  events,  we  cannot  dissociate  Christ  from  the  sub- 
sequent and  existing  phenomena  of  the  religion  which 
bears  His  name.  He  is  Himself  the  most  prominent 
and  conspicuous  feature  in  connection  with  it. 

The  name  of  Christ,  however,  suffo-ests  an  oflice  what  the 

^^  name  of 

rather  than  a  person.     It  implies  the  supposed  ful-  Christ 
filment  of  various  preconceived  ideas.     The  corre- 


4  Anticipation  of  tJie  Lect.  i. 

spondence  of  Jesus  with  the  ideal  person  and  cha- 
racter of  the  Christ  was  the  position  assumed  by  the 
earliest  preachers  of  Christianity.  And  as  this  is  a 
fact  which  admits  of  no  rational  doubt,  it  is  clear 
that  there  must  have  been  certain  predisposing 
causes  to  render  the  spread  of  Christianity  possible. 
A  belief  of  which  one  of  the  main  features  was  the 
realisation  in  Jesus  of  a  character  at  once  clearly 
defined  and  readily  intelligible  could  not  have 
achieved  any  progress  in  the  world,  if  there  had  not 
been  adequate  prej^aration  made  for  it  in  the  dis- 
semination of  such  previous  ideas. 

Because  it  was  not  the  personal  character  of  Jesus 
that  won  its  way  among  mankind,  but  the  fact  that 
in  His  character  was  fulfilled  the  conception  of  the 
Christ.  In  the  case  of  the  Jewish  nation  this  is 
sufficiently  manifest,  since  in  that  nation  there  had 
existed  for  many  centuries  the  conviction  that  a  per- 
son known  as  the  Messiah  was  eventually  to  arise. 
The  whole  conflict  of  Christianity  with  Judaism  con- 
sisted, not  in  the  maintenance  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
Christ,  but  in  the  establishment  of  the  claims  of 
Jesus  to  be  regarded  as  the  Christ. 

Nor  can  it  have  been  very  different  even  with 
Gentile  the  Gcntilcs,  who  were  led  to  believe  in  Jesus.  We 
cannot  affirm  of  them  that  there  were  certain  definite 
notions  of  a  coming  deliverer  existing  in  their  minds, 
and  that  they  believed  in  Jesus  because  He  fulfilled 
those  notions  ;  but  we  may  truly  say  that  in  every 


Its  bear- 
the 


Lect.  I.  Christ  ill  Heathen  Nations.  5 

case  tlieir  belief  iu  Him  involved  the  conviction 
that  He  was  the  'Messiah  to  whom  the  Jews  looked 
forward.  Of  this  there  is  abundant  evidence.  It 
does  appear,  however,  that  there  were  sundry  latent 
ideas  prevalent  in  the  ancient  world,  which  may 
have  had  the  effect  in  no  small  degree  of  disposing 
the  popular  mind  to  accept  more  readily  the  an- 
nouncement of  One  who  especially  claimed  to  realise 
the  anticipations  of  His  own  people.  When  we 
look  back  over  the  mass  of  current  traditions  afloat 
in  the  ancient  world,  the  attitude  of  expectation  in- 
dicated in  many  ways,  the  impression  conveyed  by 
poetry,  mythology,  philosophy,  and  literature,  that 
a  want  was  felt  in  our  nature,  and  a  hope  that  it 
might  be  supplied  was  cherished,  we  can  see  that 
there  was  much  even  in  the  heathen  world  that  an- 
swered to  the  Jewish  anticipation  of  a  Messiah,  and 
that  this  condition  of  mind  was  one  specially 
favourable  to  the  preaching  of  a  Christ,  who  was 
proclaimed  as  the  good  news  of  God  to  mankind. 

And  indeed  to  the  Christian,  who  is  fully  per-  witness  of 
suaded  that  Jesus  Christ  Avas  all  that  He  professed  world. 
to  be,  and  that  in  Him  there  is  the  present  pos- 
session of  as  much  happiness  as  our  condition  admits 
of,  and  the  future  promise  of  all  that  we  can  desire, 
it  is  not  possible  to  survey  the  monuments  of  reli- 
gious thought  in  any  nation  or  language,  and  not 
discern  indications  of  a  mental  state  that  bears 
collateral  witness  to  the  reality  of  the  want  which 


6  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

Jesus  came  to  suj^ply — if,  indeed,  it  does  not  mani- 
fest what  may  fairly  be  regarded  as  the  unconscious 
hope  of  His  coming.  There  is  independent  and 
corroborative  evidence  borne  to  Him  by  many 
■  writers  that  were  ignorant  of  His  name,  and  by 
many  religious  systems  that  are  antagonistic  to 
Him.  What  St.  Paul  says  to  the  Romans  is  doubt- 
less more  or  less  true  of  every  nation,  and  of  all 
religions,  that  that  which  may  he  known  of  God  is 
manifest  in  them,  for  God  hath  shewed  it  unto 
them}  It  is  not  given  to  all  to  bear  equal  testi- 
mony, but  there  are  continually  traces  of  a  testi- 
mony borne,  and  in  its  general  results  it  is  neither 
discordant  nor  incomplete. 
First,  by  And  wc  may  briefly  characterise  it  as  twofold. 

First,  there  is  the  universal  consciousness  of  a  deep 
and  radical  defect  in  our  constitution,  which,  if  not 
openly  confessed,  is  at  any  rate  sufhciently  betrayed. 
And  secondly,  there  is  frequently  revealed  a  kind 
of  spontaneous  impression  or  conviction  that  help,  if 
it  comes  at  all,  must  come  from  without — that  it  is 
not  competent  to  human  nature  to  regenerate  or 
emancipate  itself.  It  is  not,  of  course,  affirmed  that 
either  of  these  propositions  is  distinctly  and  broadly 
stated  in  so  many  words,  but  that,  turn  where 
we  will,  we  are  continually  being  confronted  with 
that  which  tends  to  establish  them.  And,  in  fact, 
this  testimony    is  the  more  remarkable,  from  the 

1  Rom.  i.  1 9. 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Natiojis.  7 

manifestly  undesigned  and  unintentional  manner  in 
which  it  is  borne.  Human  nature,  in  spite  of  it- 
self, bears  witness  to  the  depth  of  its  own  wound. 
There  can,  one  would  think,  be  no  question  about 
this.  Every  form  of  ancient  civilisation  bears 
evident  token  of  sin,  and  also  of  the  consciousness 
of  sin.  Eites  and  ceremonies,  laws,  manners,  and 
customs,  which,  after  all  possible  allowance  has 
been  made  for  diversity  of  feeling  and  opinion,  can 
only  be  regarded  as  indications  of  moral  corrup- 
tion, are  common  enough  in  the  records  of  every 
ancient  nation.  Whether  we  look  to  Egy23t  or 
Assyria,  to  Persia  or  to  Greece,  to  India  or  to  the 
north  of  Europe,  the  witness  is  unfaltering,  not  only 
as  to  the  depravity  of  man,  but  also  as  to  a  certain 
misgiving  within  the  heart  that  all  was  not  right. 
The  hideous  forms  of  sacrifice  which  confront  us  in 
many  quarters  are  doubtless  to  be  interpreted  thus, 
and  cannot  fairly  be  interpreted  otherwise.^  If 
sacrifice  implies  a  desire  to  surrender  what  is  most 
precious,  and  so  far  expresses  a  good  intention  and 
a  noble  efibrt,  it  implies  likewise  a  conviction  that 
to  do  so  is  absolutely  necessary.  But  why  neces- 
sary, unless  because  no  other  apparent  means  are 
open  whereby  to  redress  the  balance  of  right  which 

^  See,  for  example,  G.  W.  Cox,  Mythology  of  the  Aryan  Nations, 
ii.  144,  and  the  note  ;  also  the  elaborate  essay  of  Dr.  Kalisch  on 
Sacrifice,  prefixed  to  his  Comoneiitary  on  Leviticxis ;  and  the  Dic- 
tionary of  Science,  Literature,  and  Art,  art.  "  Sacrifice."  See  also 
Ilardwick's  Christ  and  other  Masters,  part  ii.  p.  157  seq. 


8  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

conscience  declares  to  need  and  to  demand  rectifica- 
tion ?  All  analysis  of  the  theory  of  sacrifice  must 
ultimately  result  in  this,  that  it  is  a  witness  to  dis- 
order within,  for  which  it  appears  to  promise  the 
only  available  remedy.  And  when  sacrifice  takes 
the  more  awful  and  revolting  form  that  it  assumed 
among  the  Phoenicians  and  the  Aztecs,  it  only 
shows  the  more  plainly  how  deep  and  terrible  the 
disorder  is.  But  there  can  be  no  question  that, 
long  before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era, 
human  nature  had  borne  the  most  conclusive  testi- 
mony to  the  existence  of  such  disorder,  and  by  many 
a  blood-stained  rite  had  confessed  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  it.  Wherever,  therefore,  the  Gospel  of  Christ 
came,  it  encountered  a  condition  of  mind,  which, 
being  keenly  alive  to  a  sense  of  want  within,  was 
so  far  prepared  to  receive  it.  To  make  use  of  the 
vivid  expression  of  an  anonymous  writer,  every  one 
who  embraced  the  Gospel  found  that  it  "supplied 
a  j)ositive  to  the  negative  in  himself."^ 
Secondly,  Wlicu,  howcvcr,  wc  pass  to  the  consideration  of 

logy"^  ^  the  other  kind  of  testimony  which  was  borne 
rather  to  the  hope  than  to  the  need  of  a  Redeemer, 
it  is  perhaps  possible  to  speak  with  less  confidence. 
A  vast  field  at  once  opens  out  to  our  contemplation, 
which  we  can  only  glance  at  in  the  most  cursory 
manner.     There  have  been  three  principal  methods 

^  A  reviewer  in  the  Edinhvrc/h   Courant,  quoted  by  S.  Baring- 
Gould,  Origin  and  Development  of  Rdigiims  BeVuf,  part  ii.  p.  8. 


Lect.  I.  Chi'ist  in  Heathen  Nations.  9 

of  interpreting  the  mythological  legends  of  Greece, 
They  htave  been  interpreted  on  rationalistic  prin-  Methods 
ciples,  as  Lord  Bacon  ^  and  others  have  explained  pretation. 
them ;  or  they  have  been  regarded  as  distorted  ver- 
sions of  historical  occurrences,  or  in  some  cases  as 
perverted  accounts  of  historical  events.  Latterly, 
however,  the  tendency  has  been  to  look  at  them  in 
their  relation  to  the  mythological  tales  of  other 
countries,  as  portions  merely  of  a  vast  whole. 
And  so  it  has  been  supposed  that  one  principle 
pervades  them  all.  This  method  of  interpretation 
is  known  as  the  solar  theory.^     The  daily  natural  The  solar 

•^  \  theory. 

phenomena  of  dawn  and  daybreak,  sunrise,  noon- 
tide, and  sunset,  and  of  the  varying  seasons  in  their 
perpetual  recurrence,  having  been  originally  ex- 
pressed in  sensuous  language,  which  the  mind  after- 
wards outgrew,  became  ultimately  invested  with 
those  very  passions  and  accidents  which  the  lan- 
guage literally  suggested.  And  thus  the  foundation 
was  laid  of  a  copious  mythology,  in  which  the 
repetition  of  the  same  ideas  in  various  forms  is  per- 
petually discernible.  This  theory  may  or  may  not 
eventually  be  regarded  as  a  satisfactory  explanation  Legends 
01  the  rise  01  the  various  myths  ;  it  is  not  even  derstood. 
imagined  that  it  expresses  the  way  in  which  they 
were  actually  understood  either  by  the  poets  who 
gave  them  their  existing  form,  or  by  the  people  who 

1  In  The,  Wisdom  of  the  Ancients,  and  elsewhere. 
^  Cox,  i.  53  seq.;  ii.  108,  109,  et  passim. 


lo  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

took  delight  in  the  repetition  of  them.  However 
true  it  may  be  as  a  conjecture  of  their  origin,  it 
cannot  for  a  moment  be  accepted  as  the  actual 
message  which  they  bore  to  the  world  at  large. 
It  would  be  quite  as  reasonable  to  assign  to  them 
a  directly  Christian  meaning,  as  to  pretend  that 
their  recondite  etymological  significance  was  that 
commonly  understood.  The  poetical  interpretations 
of  comj^arative  mythology  are  the  natural  fruit  of 
comparative  philology,  and  could  not  have  been  origi- 
nated till  it  had  given  them  birth.  AVe  are  therefore 
at  liberty  to  regard  the  ancient  mythological  legends 
in  their  literal  form,  as  we  may  lie  sure  they  were 
popularly  regarded,  and  consider  to  what  extent  they 
may  have  served  to  prepare  men's  minds  to  receive 
the  doctrine  and  religion  of  the  Christ. 
The  teach-        ^^^  jjgpg  j|.  eauuot  bc  questioned  that  all  mytho- 

ing  im-  -••  "^ 

plied.  logics  represented  the  gods  as  holding  intercourse 
w4th  men.  They  had  their  offspring  among  men, 
their  friends  and  companions  among  men,  their 
enemies  among  men.  The  teaching  of  mythology 
clearly  was  that  the  notion  of  communion  with  the 
gods  was  neither  aljsurd  nor  inconceivable.  And 
so  far  as  this  mythology  expressed  on  the  one  hand 
the  popular  sentiment,  and  on  the  other  served  to 
create  and  foster  it,  we  may  believe  that  to  a  certain 
extent  it  acted  favoural)ly  rather  than  unfavourably 
in  ])rcdisposing  men  to  receive  the  message  of  the 
Incarnation.      In  like  manner,  tlic  notion  of  assist- 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  1 1 

ance  bestowed  in  an  unexpected  and  supernatural 
way  was  by  no  means  unfamiliar  to  mythology, 
and  would  therefore  be  subservient  to  the  doctrine 
of  a  Divine  Redeemer,  who  came  to  succour  the 
weak,  and  to  raise  the  fallen.^  And,  finally,  the 
natural  inference  derived  from  mythology,  when 
regarded  in  its  widest  survey,  is  suggestive  of  the 
truth  that  there  are  sources  of  wealth  and  strength 
for  man  in  heaven  which  are  not  to  be  found  on 
earth  ;  and,  that  if  he  is  to  be  delivered  at  all,  it 
must  be  by  a  power  exerted  from  without  him,  and 
not  merely  by  strength  developed  from  within. 

It  appears  then,  that  we  may  fairly  say  that,  not-  Hs  result. 
withstanding  much  that  was  in  the  highest  degree 
revolting  in  mythology,  and  much  that  had  un- 
doubtedly begun  to  pall  upon  the  taste  of  the 
healthier  and  the  loftier  minds,  there  was  also  that  in 
it  which  would  serve  as  a  sufiiciently  prepared  basis 
whereon  to  rear  the  superstructure  of  faith  in  a  Divine 
Son  of  God  and  Redeemer  of  men,  who  should  save 
His  people  with  a  mighty  salvation,  when  His  advent 
was  proclaimed  upon  sufficient  testimony. 

While,  however,  the  efi'ect  of  the  ancient  mytho-  insufficient 

/  to  awaken 

loffv,  both  as  regards  the   disgust  and  loathins;  it  definite 

^-^  .     ^  ^  *  hopes. 

must  have  excited  and  the  relations  of  beings  of  a 
higher  nature  to  man  with  which  it  may  have  made 
men's  minds  familiar,  may  have  been  on  the  whole 
favourable  as  a  preparation  for  the  preaching  of  the 

■^   Cf.  Hardwick,  Christ  and  other  Masters,  part  ii.  p.  160  5t(/. 


12  Anticipation  of  the  Lfxt.  i. 

Gospel ;  it  does  not  aj)pear  that  at  any  time  it  had 
sufficed  to  arouse  the  distinct  anticipations  of  a  Ee- 
deemer  to  come,  which  ol)viously  did  exist  among 
the  Jews.  We  do  indeed  discover  tokens  of  such 
anticij^ations  from  time  to  time;^  but  these  were  pro- 
bably derived  rather  than  original,  and  are  perhaps 
to  be  referred  mainly  to  the  influence  of  the  Jewish 
Scrij^tures  when  they  had  become  widely  extended 
by  means  of  the  Alexandrine  version.  The  effect 
of  mythological  teaching,  therefore,  would  not  be 
so  much  of  a  positive  as  a  negative  character,  re- 
garded as  a  preparation  for  Christ.  It  would  have 
prepared  the  mind  for  the  reception  of  the  idea,  but 
would  not  have  communicated  the  idea  itself. 
Still,  we  must  carefully  bear  in  mind  what  it  could 
not  do,  in  order  that  we  may  the  better  understand 
what  was  actually  done.  In  proportion  to  the 
poverty  of  the  soil  will  be  our  astonishment  at  the 
beauty  and  luxuriance  of  the  plant  which  after- 
wards took  root  in  it. 

^  The  vetus  et  constans  oinnio  of  Suetonius  (Vesp.  iv.  ;  Cf.  Tac. 
Hist.  V.  13)  must  refer  among  others  to  Daniel's  jsrophecy  of  the 
seventy  weeks,  then  more  than  500  years  old.  Cf.  Josephus,  B.  J. 
vi.  5,  4,  etc.  ;  also  the  third  Sibylline  Oracle. 

KoL  rhr   ^Ovos  fieydXoio  Qfov  TrdXi  Kaprepbv  ^arai, 
ot  TrdvTecrac  ^poToiai  (3lov  KaOoSTjyol  ^aovrai.  194-5 

Kal  Tore  Si]  Qebs  ovpavbOev  vipLxj/ei  ^acTLKrja.  286 

iffTi  Si  Tis  (pvXr)  ^affiXrjios,  ^s  yivos  'icrai. 

dTTTaiCTTOV    Kal  TOUTO  XP^'^OLS  TtipLTeWop.iVOlaLV 

dp^ei,  Kal  KaLvhv  (rrjKbv  OeoO  dp^er   iyeipeiv.  288-290 

Kal  TUT   an'  ijeXloio  Geos  Trifx^j/ei  ^acriXrja 

OS  ndaav  yaiav  iravaei  Tr6K(fj.oio  KaKoio.  652-3 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  1 3 

We  need  not  in  any  degree  be  anxious  to  dis- Truth  in 
pnte  the  position  that  fragments  of  truth  are  to  be  gions. 
found  in  all  religions.  The  reverse  is  rather  the 
case ;  for  it  is  the  very  presence  of  these  elements 
of  truth  that  constituted  the  natural  basis  on 
Avhich  alone  it  was  possible  for  the  Gospel  to  be 
reared.  The  points,  however,  on  which  it  is  desir- 
able to  arrive  at  clear  and  definite  notions,  if  we 
can,  are  these  : — The  way  in  which  we  are  to  regard 
the  rise  and  development  of  these  elements  of 
truth  as  we  find  them  existing;  and  the  way  in 
which  they  may  be  compared  and  contrasted  with 
other  elements  that  we  recognise  in  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments. 

It  may  surely,  then,  be  accepted  as  an  axiom  that  This  truth 
whatever  of  truth  there  is  in  any  man,  or  in  any  not  dis- ' 
nation,  is  derived  from  the  fountain  of  truth,  and  is  "^^^^^^  ' 
not  an  independent  possession  of  the  mind  itself. 
The  eye  perceives  the  light ;  there  is  no  light  in  the 
eye  but  that  which  it  perceives,  or,  having  perceived, 
retains.     So  in  the  human  mind,  there  is  no  truth 
but  that  which  it  derives  and  appropriates  from  the 
fountain  of  truth.    The  mind  is  naturally  constituted 
to  apprehend  the  truth  ;  and  when  the  channel  is  un- 
impeded truth  flows  in  and  is  apprehended.  The  truth 
reveals  itself.     The  mind  rejoices  in  the  conscious- 
ness of  having  discovered  the  truth  ;  but  with  equal 
or  with  greater  propriety  we  may  say  that  the  truth 
has  revealed  itself  to  the  mind.     And  if  truth  is  the 


14  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

exclusive  possession  of  the  Divine  Being,  every  such 
manifestation  of  truth  may  be  regarded  as  a  true 
revelation  from  Him.  Whatever  indications,  there- 
fore, we  find  of  a  sense  of  sin,  and  of  the  undefined 
terrors  incidental  to  it,  notwithstanding  the  hideous 
forms  it  may  have  at  times  assumed,  we  may  justly 
regard  as  revelations  of  a  truth,  even  as  St.  Paid 
says.  The  wrath  of  God  is  revealed  from  heaven 
against  all  ungodliness  and  unrighteousness  of  men 
ivho  hold  the  truth  in  unrighteousness.'^  We  need 
not,  therefore,  in  any  jealous  or  niggardly  manner 
refuse  to  acknowledge  the  operation  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  of  Truth  in  all  nations  and  in  all  mythologies. 
Everywhere  and  always,  from  the  first  dawn  of  in- 
telligence on  the  earth,  we  may  believe  that  the 
Spirit  of  Truth  has  been  struggling  to  gain  admit- 
tance into  the  minds  of  men  ;  and  as  far  as  the  fact 
is  concerned  it  matters  not  whether  we  speak  of  His 
success  as  the  natural  achievement  of  human  efibrt 
or  as  the  result  of  Divine  revelation.  But  unques- 
tionably the  latter  is  the  more  correct,  because 
otherwise  we  should  be  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the 
various  degrees  of  results,  where  there  is  every 
reason  to  believe  that  the  human  eff"ort  has  been 
the  same.  He  has  favoured  some  more  highly  than 
others,  and  the  eff"ects  are  manifest. 
How  did  What  was  historically  the  actual  primeval  con- 

Gmrfust°  dition  of  mankind  it  will  never  l)e  possible  for  us  to 

arise  ? 

^   Rom.  i.  18. 


lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  1 5 

determine.  The  Mosaic  narrative  may  or  may  not 
commend  itself  to  us  as  the  most  probable  ;  it  is 
absolutely  certain  that  if  we  reject  it  we  can  dis- 
cover none  that  shall  be  on  the  whole  more  satisfac- 
tory or  more  probable.  We  may  ask,  How  did  the 
idea  of  God  or  a  god  first  suggest  itself  to  the 
human  mind  ?  We  may  decide  that  the  ever- 
present  vision  of  the  heavens,  or  the  sky,  or  the 
light,  or  the  sun,^  supplied  a  natural  expression, 
borrowed  from  a  natural  object  for  the  idea  when 
it  arose.  But  how  did  the  idea  arise  ?  Was  it  spon- 
taneous ?      Was  it  orio'inal  ?   or  Was  it  altoo-ether 

o  -  o 

secondary  and  suggested  ?  This  question  we  have 
really  no  means  of  deciding  one  way  or  the  other.  To 
draw  an  inference  from  the  jDhenomena  of  language 
which  decides  it,  obliges  us  to  adopt  the  inconceiv- 
able hypothesis  that  the  earliest  individuals  of  our 
race  were  incapable  of  any  other  ideas  than  those  of 
natural  objects  ;  that  the  first  man  was  a  merely 
sensuous  being,  who  had  no  language  but  for  the 

^  "  One  of  the  earliest  objects  that  would  strike  and  stir  the  mind 
of  man  and  for  which  a  sign  or  a  name  would  soon  be  wanted  is  surely 
the  Sun,  .  .  Think  of  man  only  as  man  .  .  .  with  his  mind 
yet  lying  fallow,  though  full  of  germs — germs  of  which  I  hold  as 
strongly  as  ever  no  trace  has  ever,  no  trace  will  ever,  be  discovered 
anywhere  but  in  man  ;  think  of  the  Sun  awakening  the  eyes  of  man 
from  sleep,  and  his  mind  from  slumber  !  Was  not  the  Sunrise  to  him 
the  first  wonder,  the  first  beginning  of  all  reflection,  all  thought,  all 
philosophy  ?  was  it  not  to  him  the  first  revelation,  the  first  beginning 
of  all  trust,  of  all  religion  ?" — Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Religion,  p.  368. 
Cf.  also  Hardwick,  Christ  and  other  Masters,  part  ii.  p.  12,  n.  2. 


1 6  Anticipation  of  the '  lect.  i. 

objects  of  sense,  and  no  need  for  any  other  lan- 
guage. If  this  really  were  so,  then  it  is  inconceiv- 
able that  the  idea  of  God  could  ever  have  arisen. 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  idea  of  God  was  a  primary 
and  original  idea,  it  must  have  found  an  original 
expression  in  language,  whether  or  not  the  traces 
of  such  an  expression  are  discernible  in  any  of 
the  existing  forms  of  language.  The  analogy  of 
the  Aryan  languages  may  indeed  point  us  to  the 
former  inference ;  but  it  is  one  which  may  be  modi- 
fied, if  not  corrected,  by  the  analogy  of  the  Semitic 
languaofes.  There  the  name  for  God  is  not  derived 
from  any  visible  object,  l^ut  is  itself  expressive  of 
an  attribute  that  may  naturally  have  been  adopted 
as  an  original  symbol  for  an  idea  which  was  original. 
To  have  called  God  the  strong  or  mighty  one,  would 
seem  to  have  been  at  least  as  simple  and  primitive 
as  to  have  borrowed  the  idea  of  God  from  the  sun, 
or  the  sky,  or  the  light,  or  to  have  used  the  names 
of  those  ol^jects  for  the  expression  of  that  idea.  It 
may  be  impossible,  on  scientific  principles,  to  decide 
whether  or  not  the  idea  of  God  is  original  to  man, 
without  a  very  much  larger  induction  than  we  at 
present  possess  ;  but  these  two  considerations  appear 
at  least  to  be  worth  our  notice  :  namely,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  conceive  how  the  thought  of  God  could 
ever  have  been  framed  if  it  was  not  from  the  first 
innate  in  man — if  there  had  not  been  that  in  man's 
nature  which  responded  to  the  external  fact  of  God's 


Lect.;i.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations. 


17 


existence.'^  We  Ccannot  imagine  how  it  could  have 
dawned  upon  the  human  conception  which  had 
before  been  devoid  of  it ;  and  if  it  had  hxin  dor- 
mant, then  we  may  doubt  whether  mere  earthly 
j^henomena  would  have  sufficed  to  arouse  it.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  accept  the  Mosaic  record  as 
authentic,  and  as  furnishing  as  true  an  idea  of  the 
constitution  and  condition  of  the  first  man  as  we  can 
obtain  elsewhere,  if  not  a  truer  one,  then  this  ques- 
tion is  practically  solved  for  us,  for  that  narrative 
represents  the  first  man  as  possessed  of  free  and  un- 

^  The  analogy  of  liunian  growth  from  childhood  to  maturity  may 
suggest  the  supposition  that  the  idea  of  God  may  have  existed  from 
the  first  in  man,  but  potentially  rather  than  actually.  There  was 
a  capacity  for  the  conception  of  God,  though  that  conception  existed 
only  in  germ,  and  was  undeveloped,  just  as  there  was  a  capacity  for 
all  kinds  of  knowledge,  though  the  knowledge  was  undiscovered. 
And  thus  it  may  be  supposed  that  natural  phenomena,  operating  on 
this  capacity,  developed  the  idea  of  God,  which  was  not  otherwise 
original  or  innate.  But  it  appears  that  the  thought  of  God  is  as 
vivid  in  childhood  as  it  ever  is  afterwards,  and  the  tendency  of  mental 
development  is  to  expel  rather  than  encourage  that  thought.  The 
earliest  races  of  man  are  the  most  religious,  and  the  effect  of  intel- 
lectual development  and  mental  culture  is,  at  least  in  many  cases, 
rather  unfavourable  to  religious  conceptions  than  otherwise.  It 
would  seem,  therefore,  that  analogy  points  rather  to  the  opposite 
conclusion,  that  the  existence  of  the  idea  of  God  in  the  human 
mind  can  only  be  accounted  for  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  ori- 
ginal and  not  derived,  that  it  was  innate  in  the  first  man,  and  not 
developed  in  him  by  the  teachings  of  external  nature.  We  cannot 
claim  for  human  nature  the  power  of  inventing  God,  when  the  his- 
tory of  experience  shows  us  that  man's  natural  tendency,  even  under 
the  most  favourable  circumstances,  is  to  forget  Him,  or  even  to  deny 
His  existence. 

C 


1 8  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

interrupted  communion  witli  God.^  He  can  have 
lacked,  therefore,  neither  the  full  conception  of  the 
idea,  nor  the  language  in  which  to  clothe  it.^ 

^  Gen.  ii.  16,  17  ;  iii.  8,  9,  10.  Comparing  these  passages,  we  are 
led  to  infer  that  the  effect  of  sin  was  to  impair  the  freedom  of  man's 
intercourse  with  God, 

2  The  opposite  theory  has  found  an  eloquent  exponent  in  Pro- 
fessor Max  MiiUer.  "  The  iirst  materials  of  language  supply  expres- 
sions for  such  impressions  only  as  are  received  through  the  senses. 
If,  therefore,  there  was  a  root  meaning  to  burn,  to  be  bright,  to 
warm,  such  a  root  might  supply  a  recognised  name  for  the  sun  and 
for  the  sky.  But  let  us  now  imagine,  as  well  as  we  can,  the  process 
which  went  on  in  the  human  mind  before  the  name  of  sky  could  be 
torn  away  from  its  material  object  and  be  used  as  the  name  of  some- 
thing totally  different  from  the  sky.  There  was  in  the  heart  of 
man,  from  the  very  first,  a  feeling  of  incompleteness,  of  weakness, 
of  dependence,  whatever  we  like  to  call  it  in  our  abstract  language. 
We  can  explain  it  as  little  as  we  can  explain  why  the  new-born 
child  feels  the  cravings  of  hunger  and  thirst.  But  it  was  so  from 
the  first,  and  is  so  even  now,  Man  knows  not  whence  he  comes 
and  whither  he  goes.  He  looks  for  a  guide,  for  a  friend  ;  he 
Avearies  for  some  one  on  whom  he  can  rest  ;  he  wants  something 
like  a  father  in  heaven.  In  addition  to  all  the  impressions  which 
he  received  from  the  outer  world,  there  was  in  the  heart  of  man  a 
stronger  impulse  from  within — a  sigh,  a  yearning,  a  call  for  some- 
thing that  should  not  come  and  go  like  everything  else,  that  should 
be  before,  and  after,  and  for  ever,  that  should  hold  and  support 
everything,  that  should  make  man  feel  at  home  in  this  strange 
world.  Before  this  strange  yearning  could  assume  any  definite 
shape  it  wanted  a  name  :  it  could  not  be  fully  grasped  or  clearly 
conceived  except  by  naming  it.  But  where  to  look  for  a  name  ? 
No  doi;bt  the  storehouse  of  language  was  there,  but  from  every 
name  that  was  tried  the  mind  of  man  shrank  back  because  it  did 
not  fit,  because  it  seemed  to  fetter  rather  than  to  wing  the  thought 
that  fluttered  within  and  called  for  light  and  freedom.  But  when 
at  last  a  name,  or  even  many  names  were  tried  and  chosen,  let  us 
see  what  took  place,  as  far  as  the  mind  of  man  was  concerned,     A 


lect.  I.  Ch7nst  in  Heathen  Nations.  1 9 

If,  however,  it  is  liard  to  believe  that  the  idea  of  The  idea 

of  sin. 

God  was  originally  suggested  to  mankind  by  the 
teachings  of  external  nature ;  if  the  spectacle  of  the 

certain  satisfaction,  no  doubt,  was  gained  by  having  a  name  or 
several  names,  however  imperfect  ;  but  these  names,  like  all  other 
names,  were  but  signs — poor,  imperfect  signs  ;  they  were  predi- 
cates, and  very  partial  predicates,  of  various  small  portions  only  of 
that  vague  and  vast  something  which  slumbered  in  the  mind. 
When  the  name  of  the  brilliant  sky  had  been  chosen,  as  it  has 
been  chosen  at  one  time  or  other  by  nearly  every  nation  upon 
earth,  was  sky  the  full  expression  of  that  within  the  mind  which 
wanted  expression  %  Was  the  mind  satisfied  ?  Had  the  sky  been 
recognised  as  its  god  %  Far  from  it.  People  knew  perfectly  well 
what  they  meant  by  the  visible  sky  ;  the  first  man  who,  after  look- 
ing everywhere  for  what  he  wanted,  and  who  at  last  in  sheer 
exhaustion  grasped  at  the  name  of  sky  as  better  than  nothing, 
knew  but  too  well  that  his  siiccess  was  after  all  a  miserable  failure. 
The  brilliant  sky  was,  no  doubt,  the  most  exalted,  it  was  the  only 
unchanging  and  infinite  being  that  had  received  a  name,  and  that 
coiild  lend  its  name  to  that  as  yet  unborn  idea  of  the  Infinite  which 
disquieted  the  human  mind.  But  let  us  only  see  this  clearly,  that 
the  man  who  chose  that  name  did  not  mean,  could  not  have  meant, 
that  the  visible  sky  was  all  he  wanted,  that  the  blue  canopy  above 
was  his  god." — Science  of  Religion,  pp.  269-272.  And  again  :  "It 
was  by  a  slow  process  that  the  human  mind  elaborated  the  idea  of 
one  absolute  and  supreme  Godhead  ;  and  by  a  stiU  slower  process 
that  the  human  language  matured  a  word  to  express  that  idea.  A 
period  of  growth  was  inevitable,  and  those  who,  fi-om  a  mere  guess 
of  their  own,  do  not  hesitate  to  speak  authoritatively  of  a  primeval 
revelation  which  imparted  to  the  Pagan  world  the  idea  of  the  God- 
head in  all  its  purity,  forget  that,  however  pure  and  sublime  and 
spiritual  that  revelation  might  have  been,  there  was  no  language 
capable  as  yet  of  expressing  the  high  and  immaterial  conceptions 
of  that  Heaven-sent  message." — Chijys  from  a  German  WorJcshoj^ 
i.  240. 

More  simple,  and,  on  the  whole,  not  less  probable,  appears  to 
be  the  notion  of  a  first  man  as  yet  unsinning,  who  could  receive  and 


20  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

brilliant  and  boundless  heaven  either  developed  in 
man  the  conception  of  a  god,  or  at  least  furnished 
him  with  the  earliest  mode  of  expressing  the 
hitherto  unexpressed  idea;  can  we  suppose  that  the 
thought  of  sin  owed  its  origin  in  the  same  way  to 
the  suggestions  of  natural  phenomena  ?  What  are 
the  natural  phenomena  calculated  to  develop  the 
notion  of  sin  ?  It  is  impossible  to  determine.  But 
it  is  likewise  impossible  to  deny  the  manifold  evi- 
dence of  a  knowledge  of  sin  which  meets  us  in  the 
world.  The  sense  of  sin,  therefore,  if  it  was  not 
prompted  by  the  phenomena  of  nature,  must  either 
have  been  spontaneously  developed,  or  it  must  have 
been  caused  by  the  presentation  from  without  of 
some  rule  or  standard  which  declared  it.  But  if  it 
Avas  spontaneously  developed  there  is  nothing  to 
show  that  it  may  not  from  the  first  have  been  a 
delusion.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  it  may  not 
be  a  delusion  now.  There  is  nothing  to  show  that  we 
as  sinners  are  individually  guilty  before  God,  unless 
there  has  been  authoritatively  declared  to  us  an 
outward  law  that  we  have  violated.  The  law  may 
indeed  be  ivritten  in  the  hearty  but  it  must  still  be 

therefore  express  tlie  commands  of  the  Almighty,  and  give  names 
to  all  His  creatures. 

The  idea  of  God  is  no  less  simple  than  it  is  stupendous  or 
profound,  and  it  was  surely  capable  of  being  apprehended  in  its 
simplicity  ages  before  thought  or  speech  could  fi'ame  or  utter  the 
"  idea  of  one  absolute  and  supreme  Godhead." 

^  Eom.  ii.  15. 


Lect.  I.  Chinst  in  Heathen  Nations.  2 1 

tlie  counterpart  of  a  reality  which  exists  in  God. 
Our  consciences  may  accuse  us,  but  why  do  they 
accuse  us,  unless  because  they  reflect  a  law  external 
to  and  independent  of  themselves,  which  says — 
Thou  shalt  not,  or.  Thou  shalt  ?  What  the  historical 
rise  of  this  consciousness  was  we  know  not,  and 
science  cannot  discover  it  to  us ;  but  our  own 
nature  tells  that  there  the  standard  was  long  be- 
fore there  was  any  human  consciousness  to  recog- 
nise its  existence.  It  is  impossible  that  the  natural 
development  of  the  moral  faculties  can  both  have 
invented  the  standard,  and  also  have  arrived  at 
the  knowledge  of  it.  If  they  arrived  at  the  know- 
ledge of  it,  there  it  must  have  been  to  be  known ; 
they  may  have  perceived  it,  or  rather  it  must  have 
revealed  itself  unto  them  ;  but  if  they  invented  it, 
then,  being  the  invention  of  the  moral  faculties, 
we  have  no  guarantee  that  the  standard  is  not  an 
incorrect  one,  our  very  perception  of  it  may  be  an 
entire  mistake :  but  then,  of  course,  the  inference 
follows  that  if  it  is  an  entire  mistake  we  have  no 
right  to  insist  upon  our  faculty  of  determining  what 
is  just  or  true. 


Or  we  may  state  the  matter  thus.     If  God  has  God  has 

1       •  1  Tx  11  •  given  us 

given  us  a  revelation,  then  He  must  also  have  given  the  powe 
us  adequate  indications  of  its  truth,  and  He  must  nise  a  re- 
further  have    given  us   the  power   of  recognising  ^4en°" 
them  as  adequate  when  given.     For  if  He  has  not  s'^^"" 
given   us  this   power,   then   any  indications  of   a 


2  2  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

revelation,  even  if  given,  would  be  useless.  We 
should  be  incapable  of  receiving  it.  If,  on  tlie 
other  hand.  He  has  not  given  us  adequate  indica- 
tions of  the  truth,  then  the  exercise  of  our  faculty 
of  discrimination  is  impossible.  There  is  no 
higher  sphere  for  its  exercise.  But  we  know  that 
we  do,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  possess  this  faculty  of 
discrimination  in  some  things,  and  to  a  certain 
extent,  and  we  do  habitually  exercise  it,  even 
though  at  times  it  may  mislead  or  fail  us.  Conse- 
quently, the  possession  of  this  faculty  and  the 
power  of  exercising  it  in  all  things  but  the  highest, 
is  reason  for  believing  that  we  have  it  also  in  the 
highest  if  the  opportunity  of  exercising  it  should 
occur.  If,  therefore,  we  possess  a  faculty  of  dis- 
criminating between  truth  and  falsehood,  then,  on 
the  supposition  that  God  has  given  us  a  revelation 
appealing  to  that  faculty,  we  are  manifestly  com- 
petent to  recognise  it  when  given ;  but  the  widest 
possible  induction  of  facts  leads  us  to  confess  that 
we  do  recognise  a  shalt  and  a  shalt  not,  an  ought  and 
an  ought  not.  This  shalt  and  shalt  not,  this  ought 
and  ought  not,  cannot  be  true,  we  cannot,  know  it 
to  be  true,  it  must  be  uncertain  and  unreal,  if  it  is 
merely  the  result  of  our  own  invention  and  fancy, 
and  not  God's  revelation.  If,  therefore,  the  shalt 
and  the  shalt  not,  the  oug;ht  and  the  ouo^ht  not,  are 
true ;  if  the  difference  between  them  is  a  reality  ; 
then  that  which  assures  us  of  this  reality  is  the 


lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  23 

revelation  of  God.  That  is  to  say,  it  is  by  the 
revelation  of  God  that  we  recognise  the  difference 
between  right  and  wrong,  truth  and  falsehood.  God 
hath  showed  it  unto  us. 

We  are  surely  warranted   then,  in    saying  not  As  He  has 

.  .     shown  us 

only  that  the  iDower  of  recognising  this  difference  is  the  differ- 

00  ence  be- 

given  by  God,  but  that  it  is  one  which  could  not  be  tween 

given  through  nature  or  the  teachings   of  natural  wron|" 

phenomena.     It  was  not  by  the  suggestions  of  these 

phenomena  that  man  rose  to  a  conception  of  morals 

or  to  the  perception  of  the  Infinite  and  the  idea  of 

God,     It  does  not  appear  that  the  contemplation  of 

any  natural  objects  could  reveal  the  moral  difference 

between  right  and  wrong,  the  beauty  of  truth  or  the 

hatefulness  of  falsehood.     Nor  can  we  believe  that 

the  first  revelation  of  God  was  derived  from  gazing 

on  the  splendour  and  infinitude  of  the  sky,  or  on 

the  vastness  of  the  ocean.     It  did  not  come  from  which  is 

not  de- 
nature or  through  nature,  but  from  beyond  nature,  rived  from 

from  God  himself. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious  that  it  is  only 

by  language  derived  from  natural  objects  that  we 

can    express   those   ideas   which   are    beyond    the 

sphere   of  nature.     It  is   only  by   metaphor   and  only  ^^J^^^ 

analogy  that  we  can  speak  of  the  unseen.     The  eye  ""yj^^^^' 

of  the  mind  has  no  lancruag-e,  but  that  which  is  re-  nved  from 

°       ^  nature. 

quired  and  has  already  been  used  to  denote  the 
impressions  derived  through  the  eye  of  the  body,  or 
through  the  other  senses.     And  language  thus  em- 


24  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

ployed  lias  unquestionably  a  tendency  to  react  on 
thought,  and  to  debase  thought ;  it  has  a  tendency 
also  to  fetter  and  confine  it.  And  it  is  probable 
that  to  this  influence  of  language  upon  thought 
we  may  more  or  less  directly  ascribe  many  of 
the  dreams  of  mythology  in  all  nations  ;  but  then 
we  must  remember  that  if  the  true  origin  of  my- 
thology is  to  be  found  in  language — if,  as  has  been  so 
finely  said,  mythology  is  the  "  dark  shadow  which 
language  throws  on  thought  "^ — we  have  to  face 
the  question,  Why  is  it  that  conceptions  originally  so 
pure  and  noble,  so  true  and  beautiful,  suggested  by 
the  glorious  phenomena  of  nature,  should  not  have 
Mythology  jjeeu  prcscrvcd  in  their  intcOTity,  or  at  least  from  time 

points  to  a  _  o       ^ 

declension,  to  time  havc  bccn  renewed  by  the  same  inspiring  in- 
fluences? But,  on  the  contrary,  accepting  this  as 
their  true  origin,  it  cannot  even  be  pretended  that 
every  trace  of  it  did  not  soon  vanish,  like  the  dewdrops 
of  the  dawn  before  the  rising  sun,  never  to  reappear 
but  in  debasing  and  unworthy  legends.  In  short, 
we  can  discover  no  tendency  in  mythology  to  re- 
generate itself.  It  follows  therefore,  from  the  evidence 
afforded  by  this  method  of  mythological  interpreta- 
tion, that  the  natural  tendency  of  man  is  to  deterio- 

^  "  Mythology  is  inevitable,  it  is  natural,  it  is  an  inherent 
necessity  of  language,  if  we  recognise  in  language  the  outward  form 
and  manifestation  of  thought  :  it  is  in  fact  the  dark  shadow  which 
language  throws  on  thought,  and  which  can  never  disappear  till 
language  becomes  altogether  commensurate  with  thought,  which  it 
never  will." — Max  Mtiller,  Science  of  Reliyion,  p.  353. 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  25 

rate.  His  first  conceptions  of  the  Infinite  were  truer 
and  worthier  than  his  Latest ;  for,  whether  or  not  he 
originally  identified  the  visible  heavens  with  God, 
he  subsequently  learnt  to  confound  God  with  the 
sensuous  images  language  had  associated  with  the 
visible  heavens.     And  here  was  a  moral  fall.^ 

May  we  not  say,  then,  that  the  witness  of  mytho- 
logy is  clear  not  only  to  this  moral  fall  in  itself,  but 
also  to  the  reality  of  that  fallen  condition  of  which 

1  "  There  are  two  distinct  tendencies  to  be  observed  in  tlie 
growth  of  ancient  religion.  There  is,  on  the  one  side,  the  struggle 
of  the  mind  against  the  material  character  of  language,  a  constant 
attempt  to  strip  words  of  their  coarse  covering,  and  fit  them,  by  main 
force,  for  the  purposes  of  abstract  thought.  But  there  is,  on  the 
other  side,  a  constant  relapse  from  the  spiritual  into  the  material, 
and,  strange  to  say,  a  predilection  for  the  material  sense  instead  of 
the  spiritual.  This  action  and  reaction  has  been  going  on  in  the 
language  of  religion  from  the  earliest  times,  and  is  at  work  even 
now." — Max  Miiller,  Science  of  Religion,  p.  268. 

And  again,  "The  first  step  downwards  would  be  to  look  upon  the 
sky  as  the  abode  of  that  Being  which  was  called  by  the  same  name  ; 
the  next  step  woiild  be  to  forget  altogether  what  was  behind  the 
nanie,  and  to  implore  the  sky,  the  visible  canopy  above  our  heads, 
to  send  rain,  to  protect  the  fields,  the  cattle,  and  the  corn,  to  give  to 
man  his  daily  bread.  Nay,  very  soon  those  who  warned  the  world 
that  it  was  not  the  visible  sky  that  was  meant,  but  that  what  was 
meant  was  something  high  above,  deep  below,  far  away  from  the 
blue  firmament,  would  be  looked  iipon  either  as  dreamers  whom  no 
one  could  understand,  or  as  unbelievers  who  despised  the  sky,  the 
great  benefactor  of  the  world.  Lastly,  many  things  that  were  true 
of  the  visible  sky  would  be  told  of  its  divine  namesake,  and  legends 
would  spring  up,  destroying  every  trace  of  the  deity  that  once  was 
hidden  beneath  that  ambiguous  name." — Max  Miiller,  ibid.,  p. 
273. 


26  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

it  was  at  once  the  proof  and  the  result  ?  Why  is 
there  a  tendency  in  human  nature  to  deteriorate,  an 
inability  to  rescue  and  restore  itself,  as  the  develop- 
ment of  mythology  and  as  practical  experience 
alike  testify,  unless  because  of  an  original  twist  or 
wrench  in  our  nature  from  the  effects  of  which  we 
cannot  recover  ourselves  ?  All  things  bear  witness 
to  this  fact,  wherever  we  turn.  All  societies,  re- 
ligions, institutions,  experience  the  effects  and  bear 
witness  to  the  truth  of  it.  Is  it  not  as  useless  to 
deny  as  it  is  impossible  to  explain  it  ?  We  may 
find  it  difficult  to  say  what  we  mean  by  the  Fall, 
and  may  not  care  too  narrowly  to  define ;  but  the 
evidence  of  facts  for  the  reality  and  truth  of  a  Fall 
is  irresistible.  And  if  the  natural  growth  of  my- 
thology is  itself  a  witness  to  this  tendency  to  de- 
cline, how  much  more  is  the  mythology  full  grown  ! 
Can  anything  afford  more  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  depravity  of  the  human  heart  than  the  ulti- 
mate form  assumed  by  many  of  the  legends  of 
Greece,  to  say  nothing  of  those  of  India  ?  Is  it 
possible  to  excuse  or  to  condone  the  practices 
which  were  the  immediate  outcome  of  the  cultus 
associated  with  those  legends,  and  the  deities  to 
whom  they  referred  ?  We  may  try  to  believe  that 
their  origin  was  more  innocent  than  their  result, 
but  there  can  be  no  mistake  about  their  result. 
The  Pauline  account  of  the  heathen  world  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Eomans  is  too  vivid  not  to  be  true, 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations. 


27 


and  is  too  true  to  be  disputed.  And  that  was  the 
actual  outcome  of  mythology,  for  of  religion  pro- 
perly speaking  there  was  none. 

And  can  we  believe  that  this  was  the  method  The  origin 
adopted   by   God   for   developing    the    growth  oftianity, 
Christianity  ?     AVas  Christianity  the  natural  flower  is  not  to  be 
and  fruit  of  such  a  seed  and  such  a  plant  as  this  ?  fo  myAo- 
Is  Christianity  what  this  developed  into  ?    Because,  °^^' 
if  we  are  to  eliminate  all  but  purely  natural  causes, 
we  shall  be  constrained  to  confess  that  the  Gospel 
as  it  appeared  at  first  was  the  direct  outcome,  the 
spontaneous  production,  of  germs  and  forces  such  as 
these.     The  hideous  and  the  impure  originated  the 
lovely  and  the  pure.       The  unholy  generated  the 
holy.     If  mythology  was  but  the  progressive  de- 
velopment of  religious  ideas  spontaneously  conceived 
in  man,  it  must  have   been  a  direct  link  in  that 
chain  of  which  the  pure  Gospel  of  Christ  was  the 
ultimate  result.     And  when  we  bear  in  mind  the 
yet  grosser  and  more  openly  revolting  interpretation, 
which  by  some  has  been  unhesitatingly  assigned  to 
universal   mythology,   construing   its    ever-varying 
development  in  the  east  and  the  west  and  the  north 
and  the  south  as  but  the  unvarying  repetition  of 
the   same   ever-recurrent   foul  idea,^   one  shudders 

^  See  passim,  e.g.  Cox,  Aryan  Nations.  This  writer  does  not 
hesitate  to  refer  to  the  same  hideous  origin,  and  invest  with  the  same 
foul  significance,  the  narratives  in  Gen.  iii.  and  Num.  xxi.  7,  8,  9  ; 
Vol.  ii.  116,  n.  2  ;    114,  etc. 


28  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

to  think  of  the  a^yful  blasphemy  that  is  involved 
in  any  position  Avhicli  implies  or  seems  to  imply 
that  the  very  life-blood  of  Christianity  has  been 
deduced  through  channels  such  as  these,  and  owes 
its  natural  origin  to  the  same  ultimate  causes.  We 
may  indeed  say  this  may  be  science  so  called,  but  it 
cannot  be  truth.  Or  rather,  we  may  boldly  say, 
this  manifestly  is  not  true  ;  and  therefore  it  cannot 
be  science,  for  science  is  the  handmaid  of  truth  and 
leads  to  truth. 

No  !  What  God  has  taught  us  through  the  patent 
and  only  too  obvious  facts  of  the  heathen  world  and 
the  ultimate  phases  of  mythology,  is  sufficiently 
clear.  He  has  shown  us  written  thereon  in  unmis- 
takable characters  the  actual  condition  of  the 
human  heart,  its  naked  deformity,  its  real  depravity, 
its  natural  tendency,  when  left  to  itself.  He  has 
shown  us  the  place  there  was  in  the  world  of  our 
humanity  for  a  Eedeemer,  the  deep  want  of  a  re- 
demption, the  hopelessness  and  the  impossibility  of 
our  nature,  left  simply  to  its  own  spontaneous 
efforts,  being  competent  to  regenerate  itself.  He  has 
shown  us  that  all  this  was,  over  and  over  again,  felt 
and  witnessed  to  by  that  nature  itself.  He  has  shown 
us  that  even  the  greatest  teachers  in  the  schools 
of  Athens  could  not  shake  themselves  free  from 
the  trammels  of  a  corrupt  nature,  that  they  imper- 
fectly discerned  the  depth  of  the  corruption,  and 
thereby  proved  themselves  the  subjects  of  it.     He 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  29 

lias  thus  shown  us  that  the  workl  by  wisdom  knew 
not  God,  and  could  not  by  searching  find  Him 
out. 

The  witness,  then,  of  the  heathen  world  is  to  the  Mythology 

.  c      •  -ii-i-  11  gives  its 

existence  01  sin  with  which  it  was  unable  to  cope,  witness  to 
and  to  which  it  was  imperfectly  alive  ;  to  the  con-  for  ciiris- 
sciousness  of  a  want  which  it  was  unable  to  supply ;  to  bein'g"° 
to    the   desire  for  light   it  was  unable  to  obtain.  wiunfiS^ 
Mankind  yearned  for  that  which  it  could  not  find,  °"^'"" 
which  in  itself  it  did  not  possess.     But  every  want, 
if  a  real  one,  argues  the  existence  of  that  which  will 
supply  it.      Provision  is  made   in  nature  for  the  The  exist- 
supply  of  every  true  and  natural  want,  as  is  shown  want  in 
by  the  adaptation  of  one  thing  to  another.     We  T^roSe^ 
should  infer,  therefore,  the  abstract  existence  of  that  suppUed"^ 
which  would  meet  this  want.     And  thus  the  uni- 
versal testimony  of  the  heathen  world  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  want  becomes  itself  an  unconscious 
anticipation  of  that  which  would  supply  it.     The 
want  of  a  redemption  becomes  the  unconscious  an- 
ticipation of  a  redeemer,   and  may  be  appealed  to 
as  such.     The  character  and  conditions  of  the  want 
show  the  character  and  conditions  he  would  be  re- 
quired to  fulfil  who  should  supply  it.     And  they 
furnish,  so   far,  a   standard    by  which    his   actual 
character  may  be  measured.     He  may  be  rightly 
estimated  by  his  power  of  adaptation  to  the  wants 
of  humanity. 

But  what  is  the  evidence  which  is  afibrded  us 


30  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

If,  there-  by  tliG  stucly  of  iiiytliology  with  reference  to  the 
inyt'hoiogy  probable  origin  of  Christianity  ?  If  we  take  the 
diiction  of  niore  debased  interpretation  of  it,  we  find  it  is 
chSian-  ^bsoKitely  impossible  that  a  pure  and  purifying 
Voii^^      influence    such    as    Christianity    could   have   been 

evolved    by  a    natural    process   from    mythology. 

It  could  not  have  sprung  from  it,  or  have  had  the 
Christian-  Same  Origin  with  it.  There  must  have  been  an  en- 
hLTbeen  tircly  independent  external  and  extra-natural 
dirc/^oT  agency  at  work  to  produce  it.  If,  on  the  other 
mytho-      liand,  we  suppose  that  the  earliest  ideas  of  religion 

logy,  un-  '11  CD 

were  spontaneously  developed  through  the  influence 


less  we 
admit  the 

influx        of  nature,  then  those  ideas  must  have  grown  up 


where. 


of  Divine  _  '  _  >= 

light  some- and  arrived  at  maturity  in  the  same  way;  and 
unless  we  admit  at  some  point  or  other  the  direct 
operation  of  a  higher  independent  and  external  in- 
fluence, Christianity  itself  can  have  been  but  the 
ultimate  result,  the  highest  development,  of  these 
primary,  self-evolved  ideas.  But  we  have  seen 
that  the  actual  tendency  of  the  ideas  has  been 
to  decline  and  to  degenerate,  not  to  become  purer 
and  more  elevated ;  consequently  here  again  we  are 
met  by  a  strong  presumption  that  the  actual  origin 
of  Christianity  must  be  due  to  other  causes  than 
those  suggested.  That  is  to  say,  it  does  not  seem 
possible  to  account  for  the  higher  development  of 
the  religious  idea,  without  the  admission  of  another 
influence  out  of,  above,  and  beyond  nature,  which 
we  can  only  term  the  direct  revelation  of  God. 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  -i  i 


It  matters  not  whether  we   can  understand  or  This  is  a 
define  the  actual  operation  of  such  an  influence  :  if  dependent 
various  considerations  appear  to  converge  towards  atte^s^ed  by 
and  point  to  it,  while  the  contrary  supposition  ap- 
pears to.  be  precluded  absolutely,  then  the  natural 
inference  surely  is  that,   in  spite   of  ourselves,  we 
must  recognise  its  operation,  account  for  it  or  under- 
stand it  as  we  may. 

If,  therefore,  the  scientific  investigation  of  the 
origin  of  religion  leads  us  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
is  a  simply  natural  growth,  developed  naturally  liy 
the  spontaneous  evolution  of  religious  germs  inher- 
ent in  man,  we  have  a  right  to  test  this  conclusion 
by  the  ajDplication  of  certain  facts  which  are  or  are 
not  consistent  with  it.  "We  have  seen  that  it  is  not 
possible  to  regard  them  as  consistent  with  it,  and 
therefore  the  inference  clearly  is  that  the  proposed 
scientific  theory  fails  to  account  for  that  which  it 
professes  to  explain.  There  are  certain  manifest 
facts  which  are  not  comprehended  in  its  induction, 
and  which  are  actually  fatal  to  it. 

If,  again,  we  cannot  in  any  real  sense  hiow  what  The  fact  of 

.  .  .  1       ^  moral 

is  right  and  true  without  a  virtual  revelation  to  the  revelation 
conscience  of  the  true  and  the  right  which  consists  the  con- 
in  such  knowledge,  then  it  is  clear  that  a  path  analogous 
is  at  once  opened  out  for  us  to  conceive  of  other  rewiatTon '^ 
methods  of  revelation  no  less  real,  which  shaU  ap-  °ruth?or 
prove  themselves,  not  so  much  by  the  manner  of  prooHs'^in 
their  communication  as  by  the  subject-matter  of  that  reveSed^ 


2,2  Anticipation  of  the  lect.  i. 

which  they  reveal.  Thus,  for  example,  given  the 
person  of  Christ  as  an  actual  revelation  from  God, 
then  those  who  beheld  Him  were  recipients  of  that 
revelation  whether  they  believed  in  Him  or  not : 
the  person  whom  they  beheld  became  an  object  to 
their  consciousness  which  admitted  of  no  dispute. 
The  fact  of  the  revelation,  however,  was  antecedent 
to  their  knowledge  of  it.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the 
case  of  those  who  saw  in  Christ  the  manifestation  of 
the  Father,  there  was  a  yet  further  revelation,  which 
was  made  known  by  other  agencies  that  partly 
were  and  partly  were  not  dependent  on  the  testi- 
mony of  their  bodily  senses  ;  but  here  also  the  true 
revelation  consisted  not  in  the  method  of  its  com- 
munication, but  in  the  intrinsic  glory  of  the  object 
revealed,  of  Avhich,  whether  through  the  senses  or 
otherwise,  they  had  become  conscious.  There  had 
been  a  true  revelation  to  the  blind  man  at  Jericho 
before  with  opened  eyes  he  beheld  the  person  of 
the  Son  of  man,  but  he  could  not  have  known  of 
this  revelation  except  so  far  as  it  was  revealed  to 
him,  and  the  j^roo/'of  the  revelation  consisted  in  the 
object  revealed.  It  follows  then,  that,  just  as  tliere 
could  be  no  knowledge  of  the  person  of  Christ  but 
for  the  fact  of  His  manifestation  to  the  eyes  of  men, 
so  there  could  be  no  knowledge  of  His  Divine 
character  but  for  the  fact  of  its  revelation  to  the 
spirits  of  men.  The  knowledge  is  no  proof  of  the 
revelation,  but  without  the  revelation  there  can  be 


lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.   '  33 

no  knowledge  properly  so-called.  We  must  have  a 
Divine  revelation  before  we  can  really  know  the 
Divine  ;  without  it  we  must  abide  in  darkness.  As, 
however,  the  moral  revelation  of  rio-ht  and  wroiioj  is 
not  of  such  a  nature  as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of 
error,  so  neither  is  the  spiritual  revelation  independ- 
ent of  the  will.  There  ever  have  been,  there  always 
will  be,  consciences  it  is  unable  to  touch. 

The   all-important   questions,   of  course,    arise,  How  shall 
How  can  such  a  Divine  revelation  be  brought  home  veiation  be 
to  the  minds  of  men  ?  and  How  can  we  recognise  it  homf  ?  or 
when  presented  to  us  ?     How    shall  we    know  it  ^T^te'srit 
when  we  see  it,  and  be  sure  that  we  are  not  deceived  ?  semed^'^" 
In  answer  to  these  questions  we  may  say  that  the 
mind  is  prepared  for  the  reception  of  a  professedly 
Divine  revelation  by  the  combined  weight  of  many 
convergent   indications  and  the  accumulated  force 
of  many  independent  testimonies.     It  is  notorious 
that  several  religions  appeal  to  a  professedly  Divine 
revelation.     The  Vedas  of  the  Brahmans,  the  Zend- 
Avesta  of  the  Parsis,  the  Tri|)i^aka  of  the  Buddhists, 
the  Kuran  of  the  Muhammadans,  all  claim  to  be  re- 
garded, and   are  regarded  by  tlieir  respective   fol- 
lowers, as  divine.     Are  we  called  upon  to  admit  the 
claim  ?     Undoubtedly  not.      Every   one    of  these 
collections  of  sacred  writings  rests  upon  a  totally 
different  basis  from  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.     No  man  in  his  senses  can  com- 
pare them  and  not  perceive  their  essential  and  in- 


34 


A  lUicipation  of  the 


Lfxt.  I. 


trinsic  difference.  We  have  no  desire  to  exalt  our 
own  religion  at  the  expense  of  others,  or  to  depreciate 
others  that  our  own  may  be  exalted  ;  but  our  allegi- 
ance to  our  own  religion,  if  we  believe  in  it,  forbids 
us  for  one  moment  to  place  it  on  the  same  level 
with  others,  as  it  prevents  us  from  being  blind  to 
its  generic  difference  and  its  immeasurable  supe- 
riority.^ 
Internal  If  it  could  be  provcd  that  this  superiority  was 

superiority 

merely  a  matter  of  opinion  and  of  taste,  and  not  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  would,  of  course,  be  worth  nothing, 
and  the  sooner  we  allowed  ourselves  to  be  so  persuaded 
the  better  it  would  be.  But,  forasmuch  as  the  differ- 
ence is  demonstrably  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  useless  to 
ignore  it,  and  absurd  to  regard  it  as  though  it  were 
not.  What,  in  the  eyes  of  the  most  impartial  ob- 
server, are  the  claims  of  the  Kuran  in  comparison 
with  those  of  the   New   Testament   or  the    Old  ? 


of  the  Old 
and  New 
Testa- 
ments to 
other 
sacred 
writings. 


^  "  Those  vvlio  would  use  a  comparative  study  of  religions  as  a 
means  for  debasing  Christianity  by  exalting  the  other  religions  of 
mankind,  are  to  my  mind  as  dangerous  allies  as  those  who  think  it 
necessary  to  debase  all  other  religions  in  order  to  exalt  Christianity. 
Science  wants  no  partisans.  I  make  no  secret  that  true  Christianity, 
I  mean  the  religion  of  Christ,  seems  to  me  to  become  more  and  more 
exalted  the  more  we  know,  and  the  more  we  appreciate  the  treasures 
of  truth  hidden  in  the  despised  religions  of  the  world.  But  no  one 
can  honestly  arrive  at  that  conviction,  unless  he  uses  honestly  the 
same  measure  for  all  religions.  It  would  be  fatal  for  any  religion  to 
claim  an  exceptional  treatment,  most  of  all  for  Christianity, 
Christianity  enjoyed  no  privileges  and  claimed  no  immunities  when 
it  boldly  confronted  and  confounded  the  most  ancient  and  the  most 
powerful  religions  of  the  world.      Even  at  present    it   craves    no 


lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  35 

There  is  and  can  be  no  comparison.  It  is  not  that 
there  is  no  truth  in  the  Kuran,  or  that  the  truth 
therein  is  not  derived  from  the  one  fountain  of  truth ; 
but  the  evidence  of  revelation  in  it,  properly  so 
called,  is  simply  nil.  Or  take  again  the  Veda,  as  the 
knowledge  of  it  has  of  late  years  been  opened  out 
to  us  by  the  unceasing  and  indefatigable  labours  of 
an  eminent  scholar  of  this  place ;  where  can  we  find 
in  the  Veda,  with  all  its  beauty  and  with  all  its 
truth,  with  its  vast  antiquity  and  the  glorious 
visions  it  has  unfolded  of  the  earliest  dawn  of  human 
society  and  life — where  shall  we  find  in  it  the  same 
distinctive  evidence  of  revelation  in  the  same  con- 
scious hold  on  the  Divine  that  we  cannot  but  ac- 
knowledge, even  if  we  do  not  feel  it,  in  the  Psalms 
of  David  and  in  the  vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of 
Amoz  ? 

It  is  not  from  narrowness,  or  bigotry,  or  par- 
mercy,  and  it  receives  no  mercy  from  those  whom  our  missionaries 
have  to  meet  face  to  face  in  every  part  of  the  world.  Unless  our 
religion  has  ceased  to  be  what  it  was,  its  defenders  should  not  shrink 
from  this  new  trial  of  strength,  but  should  encourage  rather  than 
depreciate  the  study  of  comparative  theology." — Max  Miiller,  Scv'e»ce 
of  Religion,  p.  37.  All  this  is  perfectly  true  when  considering  the 
claims  of  Christianity  with  a  view  to  forming  a  decision  ;  but  when 
those  claims  have  been  considered,  then  if  they  have  not  been  re- 
jected, there  are  other  words  which  come  into  operation,  namely, 
"  He  that  is  not  with  me  is  against  me."  It  is  strange,  but  no  less 
true  than  strange,  that  a  position  of  absolute  neutrality  with  regard 
to  Christ,  and  therefore  with  regard  to  the  religion  of  Christ,  is  one 
that  always  was,  and  always  will  be,  found  impossible  to  be  long 
maintained. 


36  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

tiality,  or  want  of  sympathy  with  other  religions 
than  our  own  that  we  say  this,  hut  because  the 
sonofs  of  a  David  or  the  burdens  of  an  Isaiah  have 
palpable  evidences  of  a  knowledge  of  God  and  of  a 
mission  from  God  that  are  not  to  be  found  elsewhere. 
If  a  sjDCcial  revelation  has  anywhere  been  vouch- 
safed, and  the  record  of  it  exists,  and  if  we  have 
faculties  cajDable  of  perceiving  it  when  given,  then 
there  can  be  no  question  to  which  of  these  quarters 
we  must  turn  to  find  it.  We  cannot  say  it  is  to  be 
discovered  equally  in  all.  We  may  say  it  is  to 
be  found  pre-eminently  here,  for  instance,  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  to  such 
an  extent  that  the  claim  of  the  others  to  anything 
like  a  special  or  direct  revelation  is  not  for  a 
moment  to  be  entertained  in  comparison  with 
theirs.  Their  witness  is  within. 
External  And    tlicu,    sidc   by   side  with    these    internal 

evidence  of  •^  ^  ■  ^ 

history,  marks,  we  have  the  sure  and  mcorruj^tible  evidence 
of  history,  which  step  by  step  can  be  traced  back- 
wards in  its  broader  and  more  general  aspects,  till 
it  leaves  us  in  the  dilemma  of  reading  the  history 
in  the  light  of  the  prophets,  and  the  prophets  in 
the  light  of  the  history,  or  else  of  understanding 
neither.  We  have  the  stream  of  history  flowing  on 
contemporaneously  with  the  stream  of  literature, 
and  the  phenomena  presented  by  each  constrain 
us  to  confess  that  they  are  both  unique.  Is  this 
the  result  of  accident  ?  is  it  the  effect  of  collusion, 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  2>7 

of  preconcerted  aiTcangement  ?  or  does  it  serve 
more  naturally  to  suggest  the  gradual  working  out 
of  a  Divine  plan,  of  which  there  is  no  second  in- 
stance in  the  annals  of  the  world  ?  Doubtless  tliis, 
with  all  that  it  demands,  is  after  all  the  only 
reasonal:)le  solution  of  the  problem.  And  the  broad 
and  solid  results  that  we  are  able  to  arrive  at  are 
of  a  nature  to  be  independent  of  the  more  frag- 
mentary and  partial  criticisms  of  a  philosophy  that 
refuses  to  be  Iwund  by  any  critical  canons ;  while 
they  present  a  substantial  basis  of  fact  that  must 
serve  to  correct  and  modify  conclusions  that  are 
derived  from  the  assumption  of  a  uniform  and  dull 
monotony  in  the  history  and  literature  of  the  world 
which  has  never  Ijeen  broken.  Here  are  the  very 
facts  which  must  serve  to  check  the  over-hasty 
generalisation.  They  must  either  be  left  out,  or 
they  must  be  tortured  and  perverted  before  they 
will  fit  in. 

Thus  we  find,  at  any  rate,  that  there  is  sufficient  Sufficient 

to  arrest 

to  arrest  our  attention  in  considering,  for  example,  attention, 
the  claims  of  the  Old  Testament  to  be  regarded  as 
a  special  Divine  revelation  in  a  sense  in  which 
neither  the  Vedas  nor  the  Kuran  can  pretend  to  be. 
Treating  it  with  the  strictest  impartiality,  as  we 
naturally  should  treat  any  other  book,  we  never- 
theless find  it  to  be  marked  with  exceptional 
features  which  are  very  peculiar.  As  a  matter  of 
historic  fact,  it  has  formed  the  basis  for  another 


Anticipation  of  tin 


set  of  writings  very  different  from  its  own  in  style 
and  character,  and  that  in  a  way  that  is  altogether 
The  Old  without  parallel.  It  was  the  literary  progenitor  of 
the'^basis  of  the  New  Testament ;  and  hut  for  the  Old  Testament 
as  a  foundation  the  New  could  never  have  been 
written.  And  yet  the  relation  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment to  the  Old  is  not  that  of  a  commentary,  but 
of  an  independent,  original,  and  in  some  sense 
antagonistic  work.  And  these  statements  remain 
equally  true,  when  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New 
are  regarded  merely  as  human  productions,  as  the 
natural  growth  of  literature  in  times  and  circum- 
stances very  diverse.  The  Old  Testament  is  a 
complete  national  literature  :  the  New  Testament 
cannot  in  any  way  be  regarded  as  a  national 
literature,  though  produced  for  the  most  j^art  by 
writers  of  the  same  nation  as  the  Old,  after  an 
interval  of  nearly  five  centuries.  The  chief  charac- 
teristic of  the  New  Testament  is  that  it  professes 
to  record  the  fulfilment  and  realisation  of  the  hopes 
and  aspirations  created  by  the  Old,  and  to  describe 
the  results  consequent  thereupon.  The  historic  re- 
lation, therefore,  of  cause  and  effect  is  that  which 
best  expresses  the  relation  subsisting  between  these 
two  collections  of  writings,  and  it  is  one  which 
it  is  impossible  to  deny.  There  may  have  been 
other  causes  combining  to  bring  about  the  pro- 
duction of  the  New  Testament,  but  it  is  im2:)os- 
sible  to  eliminate  altof^^ether  the  influence  of  the 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Natio7is.  39 

Old  Testament  as  a  principal  and  preponderating 

cause. 

In  tlic  New  Testament,  however,  we  find  the  The  con- 
ception of 
conception  of  the  Christ  fully  developed,  and  there,  the  Christ 

if  anywhere,  we  are  to  discover  its  ultimate  form,  in  the  New 
It  received  no  appreciable  development  after  the 
latest  of  the  New  Testament  books  was  written,  or, 
at  least,  none  with  which  we  need  concern  our- 
selves. And  yet  this  conception  of  the  Christ  as 
there  exhil)ited,  whether  in  historical  narrative  or 
in  epistolary  correspondence,  is  one  that  could  not 
have  arisen  without  adequate  historical  preparation 
and  development.  Even  the  fourfold  life  of  Jesus, 
whom  its  several  authors  agree  in  identifying  with 
the  Christ,  could  not,  if  regarded  merely  as  a 
literary  production,  have  been  written,  if  there  had 
not  existed  previously  certain  ideas  and  notions 
which  served  as  a  nucleus  for  the  crystallisation 
of  the  thought.  It  is  hopeless  to  discover  what 
these  ideas  and  notions  were,  if  we  do  not  seek 
for  them  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  unquestion- 
ably the  germ  of  them  existed,  from  thence  they 
sprang,  and  by  this  they  were  nurtured  and  de- 
veloped. And  the  process  of  their  growth  is 
capable  of  being  historically  traced.  For  example, 
in  the  book  of  Daniel,  no  matter  when  it  was 
w^ritten,  we  find  a  usage  of  the  word  Messiah 
which  is  unique    in   the   Old  Testament.^      Even 

^  Cf.  2  Sam.  i.  21,  perhaps  th.e  nearest  approach  to  it. 


40  Anticipatiort  of  the  lect.  i. 

allowing,  wliicli  I  do  not  allo\y,  that  this  book  was 
written  as  late  as  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
it  still  affords  undeniable  testimony  to  the  exist- 
ence at  that  time  of  the  conception  of  a  person, 
more  or  less  distinct,  who  could  be  spoken  of  as 
Messiah,  the  word  being  used  like  a  proper  name 
without  the  definite  article.  And  whether  this  was 
in  the  second  or  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  it  repre- 
sents a  development  of  thought,  an  advancement 
in  the  direction  of  form  and  substance,  inasmuch 
as  not  till  then  is  such  an  expression  found.  But 
on  every  ground  there  must  have  been  some  appa- 
rent reason  for  the  conception  expressed.  There 
must  have  been  that  already  existing  which 
fcivoured  the  notion,  and  sufficed  to  create  or  to 
encourage  it.  Perhaps  it  may  not  be  easy  to 
determine  what  this  was,  but  of  its  existence 
there  can  be  no  doubt. 
Object  of  To  trace,  then,  the  historic  development  of  what 

tures.  we  may  term  the  Religion  of  the  Christ  will  be  the 
object  of  the  following  lectures  :  to  follow  it  out 
in  the  three  departments  of  history,  poetry,  and 
prophecy,  till  we  arrive  at  the  jDeriod  when  He 
who  was  proclaimed  as  the  Christ  appeared.  The 
proposition  with  which  we  start  is  this,  that  there 
must  have  been  a  sufficient  basis  in  the  Old 
Testament  for  the  New  Testament  doctrine  of  the 
Christ  to  be  reared  upon.  That  doctrine  could 
not  have  rested  upon  nothing.     It  appealed  to  a 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  41 

conception  it  already  found  in  existence.  That 
conception  was  exclusively  owing  to  the  influence 
exerted  by  tlie  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament 
upon  the  popular  mind,  or  else  to  spontaneous 
ideas  existing  in  the  national  mind,  of  which  the 
only  explanation  and  record  must  be  sought  in  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  whatever 
traces  there  are  of  a  similar  conception  in  other 
nations  are  apparently  derived  from  one  and  the 
same  source,  we  shall  be  able  to  compare  the 
origin  of  this  conception  with  the  supposed  origin 
of  mythological  conceptions,  and  to  mark  the  con- 
trast between  them.  That  any  such  idea  was 
original  to  the  Jewish  nation,  and  peculiar  to  that 
people,  admits  of  no  reasonable  doubt.  It  is  suffi- 
ciently clear  that  they  laid  claim  to  the  possession 
of  it,  and  there  is  no  other  nation  that  can  dispute 
its  possession  with  them.  They  are  historically 
distinct  from  all  other  nations  in  this  respect. 
What  is  the  natural  explanation  of  this  fact,  or 
does  it  admit  of  any  explanation  that  is  simply 
natural  ? 

If  then,  by  pursuing  a  strictly  historical  method,  Method  of 

_       _  argument 

we  are  able  to  trace  the  growth  of  this  idea  step  pursued. 
by  ste]D,  investigating  and  examining  the  several 
indications  of  its  existence,  and  the  various  circum- 
stances that  may  have  led  to  its  development — the 
influence  of  natural  causes,  the  pressure  of  external 
events,  the  example  of  surrounding   nations  and  the 


Anticipation  of  the 


like — we  shcall  be  in  a  better  position  to  decide  upon 
these  questions.  We  sliall  then  be  able  to  deter- 
mine what  the  evidence  is  for  the  first  origin  of 
this  idea,  whether  in  its  rise  and  developinent  it 
can  be  placed  in  the  category  of  mythological  con- 
ceptions that  can  be  traced  to  the  double  meanings 
of  words,  whether  there  is  any  natural  process 
capable  of  leading  up  to  the  first  thought,  or 
whether  we  must  not  consider  it  as  a  communi- 
cation imparted  to  our  humanity  rather  than  origi- 
nated by  it — a  communication,  however,  of  which 
the  importance  and  the  value  consist  quite  as  much 
in  its  intrinsic  nature  as  in  the  method  employed 
for  conveying  it,  and  of  which  the  character  and 
the  tendency  are  the  highest  evidence  of  its 
origin. 

If  again  we  can  find  in  mythology  no  clear 
indications  of  the  hope  of  a  Eedeemer,  which  as  a 
matter  of  fact  are  found  in  the  history  and  litera- 
ture of  the  Jews,  and  if  in  philosophy  also,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  a  protest  against  mythology, 
there  is  no  higher  indication  than  that  aff"orded  by 
a  celebrated  passage  in  the  "  Republic,"  we  may 
surely  arrive  at  the  not  unreasonable  conclusion 
that  these  characteristics  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures, 
being  as  they  are  unique,  do  constitute  the 
very  highest  evidence  of  the  special  revelation 
which  they  are  alleged  to  contain.  Elsewhere 
humanity  did   not  cherish  this  hope,  here  it  was 


lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  N' at  ions.  43 

cherished ;  this  is  the  way  in  which  it  was 
cherished ;  and  this  is  the  reason  why  it  was 
cherished.  The  hope  professed  to  be  based  upon  a 
promise :  a  promise  impbes  a  person  promising. 
In  this  case  a  person  promising  impbes  an  unusual 
and  unique  operation  on  the  part  of  God.  The 
evidence  of  the  work  done  points  concbisively  to 
the  doer  of  it.  AVe  are  led  up  on  all  hands  to  the 
confines  of  the  supernatural  and  the  Divine.  My- 
thology could  give  no  promise  ;  philosophy  could 
give  no  promise,  human  nature  itself  could  not 
have  originated  any  promise;  but  mythology,  philo- 
sophy, and  human  nature,  alike  bore  witness  to  the 
defect  which  the  promise  undertook  to  supply. 
Thus  far  the  unaided  energies  of  man  could  go,  but 
no  farther.  They  cried  aloud  unto  heaven,  but 
they  could  give  no  answer;  the  only  answer  was 
the  echo  of  their  cry. 

A  period,  however,  occurred  in  human  history 
when  a  distinct  answer  was  given.  A  note  of  pre- 
paration for  that  answer  was  struck  by  the  Son  of 
Zacharias  in  the  wilderness,  when  he  awoke  once 
more  the  voice  of  the  ancient  prophets.  And  then 
the  answer  itself  came  in  the  preaching  and  the 
mission  of  Jesus.  He  claimed  to  be  the  Christ  of 
whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did  write. 
That  He  advanced  this  claim  there  is  not  a  shadow 
of  doubt.  That  His  moral  character  must  stand  or 
fall  according  as  His  claim  was  or  was  not  just,  is 


44  Anticipation  of  the  Lect.  i. 

equally  certain.  His  moral  and  personal  character 
were  not  tlie  creation  of  the  Evangelists.  They  did 
not  invent  their  Jesus,  nor  invent  for  Him  His 
character  of  the  Christ.  And  yet  His  character  as 
de^Dicted  by  them  stands  alone  in  the  history  and 
the  literature  of  the  world.  As  an  invention, 
however,  it  would  have  been  little  less  wonderful 
than  as  a  history;  for  there  were  no  materials  out  of 
which  to  construct  it,  and  they  were  not  the  men  to 
use  them  if  there  had  been. 

We  have  then  a  promise,  and  a  person,  and  a 
claim- — a  person  claiming  to  fulfil  the  promise.  We 
are  all  of  us  competent  to  decide  how  far  the  pro- 
mise was  fulfilled  in  Him,  how  fiir  He  failed  to 
realise  it.  Nor  is  it  very  probable  that  we  shall 
reject  Him  on  the  ground  that  He  failed  to  realise 
the  promise.  If  we  reject  Him  at  all,  it  will  be  on 
other  grounds  than  these.  And  then,  in  that  case, 
we  shall  have  to  face  this  fact,  that  the  most  silent 
and  the  most  mighty  revolution  the  world  has  ever 
known  was  immediately  connected  with  the  belief 
that  the  ancient  promise  was  fulfilled  in  Him,  so 
that  the  verdict  of  history  will  be  opposed  to  the 
estimate  we  have  formed  of  Jesus. 

The  circumstances,  therefore,  connected  with  the 
historic  rise  of  a  particular  religion,  which  are  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  be  independent  of  the  per- 
fectly free  discussion  of  various  points  relating 
thereto,  and  of  the  particular  resolution  that  may 


Lect.  I.  Christ  in  Heathen  Nations.  45 

await  tlie  questions  involved,  are  a  valid  presump- 
tive proof  that  tins  religion  was  intrinsically  and 
in  its  origin  different  from  all  others,  inasmuch 
as  of  no  other  religion  can  the  same  characteristics  be 
predicated.  The  indications  are  many  and  various : 
they  are  independent,  cumulative,  and  confirmatory. 
They  point  us  from  many  quarters  to  one  aiid  the 
same  conclusion.  If  the  several  tales  of  several 
mythologies  appear  to  be  all  resolvable  into  one 
original  idea,  which  is  that  of  the  ever-recurrent 
decay  and  revival  of  nature,  it  is  not  so  here.  It  is 
simply  impossible,  for  example,  that  the  record  of 
the  Jewish  history,  interpret  it  as  we  may,  and 
reduce  it  to  any  extent  we  please,  can  be  resolved 
into  the  mere  repetition  of  the  same  idea.  It  stands 
out  in  marked  contrast  with  every  mythology,  and 
furnishes  the  broad  and  solid  basis  in  life  and  fact 
for  the  possible  existence  of  other  living  facts,  to 
which  there  is  palpable  evidence  in  literature  and 
in  history,  and  which  but  for  such  a  basis  could 
themselves  have  had  no  existence. 

And  thus  the  historic  and  literary  development 
of  the  doctrine  and  religion  of  the  Christ,  first  as 
it  grew  and  gathered  form  before  He  came,  and 
secondly  as  it  was  developed  in  the  early  Christian 
literature,  will  be  the  strongest  evidence  of  its 
origin ;  and  we  shall  find  that  as  we  cannot  believe 
in  Jesus  without  believing  in  the  Christ,  and  cannot 
believe  in  the  Christ  without  believing  in  Jesus,  so 


46  Anticipation  of  the  Christ,  etc.         lect.  i. 

neither  can  we  disbelieve  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ 
witliout  rejecting  an  accumulation  of  evidence  which 
may  justly  be  regarded  as  the  record  that  God  gave 
of  His  Son. 


LECTURE     II. 

THE    CHRIST  OF  JE  WISH  HISTOR  Y. 


Sic  ©n'iuiJung  tc^  jut)ifcl)cn  <Zta(xU  tuvd)  SOJofcg  tfl  cine  bcr  bcnf= 
njurbu]ftcn  23e9ebcnl;ettcn,  iueld)c  tie  @cfcl)trf)tc  aufbcroal;rt  fjat,  wi^tig 
burd)  bic  Stdrfc  be§  23crftatibc6,  nioburc^  fie  inS  9!ScrE  gcrid^tet  ivorben, 
n)id}tiijcr  nod)  burd)  i{)re  J^cfgcn  auf  bie  2Cctt,  bie  nod)  bi§  auf  biefcn 
'iJlngcnbUc!  fortbaucrn.  '^wei  Siclio^ionen,  wcidjc  ben  grcpten  3;l;eil  ber 
bewcljnten  Grbe  bc(;errfd)cn^  bas  (Et)i-iftcnt(;um  imb  ber  S^tamifniuS, 
fliifecn  fid)  beibc  auf  bie  Oletigionber  .f)ebrder,  unb  D{;nc  biefe  wiirbe  e§ 
nicmalS  weber  ein  S(;riftcnt()iim  nod)  einen  «S'oran  gcgcben  Ijahcn. 

Sci/  in  einem  gcwiffen  @inne  ill  e§  uniuiberleglii^  wa{)r,  ia^  iinr  ber 
a)iofaifd)en  Stcligion  cinen  grof en  A^^eit  ber  SlufEIdritng  banfen,  beren  unr 
un§  |)cuti9eS  Sagg  erfreucn.  ®enn  burd)  fie  wurbe  eine  foftbare  3!BaI)r()eit, 
n)cld)e  bie  ftd)  fetbfl  libertajfcne  SSernunft  crjl;  nac^  einer  langfamcn 
(Sntiincfelung  wiirbe  gcfunben  ^ahen,  bic  2el;re  t>on  bem  einigcn  ®ott, 
ttorlditfig  untcr  bem  93olfe  iierbreitet,  unb  aU  cin  @egen(l-anb  be6  blinben 
©laubcng  fo  lange  unter  bemfelben  crl;a(ten,  big  fie  cnblid)  in  ben  l)eKern 
^opfen  ju  einem  a^ernunftbcgriff  reifen  Honnte.  Daburd)  iDuvben  einem 
gro^en  Zi)cii  beg  SDtenfd^cngcfdjIed^tg  aUc  bie  traurigen  Smucgc  erfpart, 
roorauf  ber  (Slaube  an  SSielgottcrci  inUit  fuf)rcn  muf,  unb  bie  ^ebrdifd)e 
SSerfaffung  erl;iett  ben  au§fd;liefenben  23orjug,  bap  iic  OJeligion  ber 
SBcifcn  niit  ber  93olfgrctigion  nii^t  in  bircctem  SBibcrfprud^e  ftanb,  irie 
eg  bod)  bci  ben  aufgefldrtcn  ^eiben  ber  5'iK  wav^— Schiller. 


LECTURE   II. 

In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  he  blessed. — Gen.  xxii.  18. 

If  we  are  willing  to  allow  that  God  has  spoken  more  The  reii- 

.    .  .  gions  of 

or  less  by  all  the  religions  of  the  world — -and  in  pro-  the  world 

•  1    •  1  TT       ^^''^'^   ^"  ''^" 

portion  to  the  elements  oi  truth  contained  m  them  He  direct  tes- 
must  have  done  so — -then  it  manifestly  follows  that  Christ. 
in  whatever  sense  the  Christ  was  His  special  and 
chosen  way  of  revealing  Himself,  all  other  religions 
must  in  their  degree  bear  witness  unto  Him.  That 
they  may  directly  do  so  is  perhaps  not  to  be  ex- 
pected, for  in  that  case  God  must  have  spoken 
specially  by  them  ;  but  that  they  must  indirectly 
do  so  is  clear,  for  otlierwise  the  voice  of  God  would 
give  an  uncertain  or  even  a  discordant  sound.  But 
in  point  of  fact  there  is  an  indirect  and  silent  wit- 
ness borne  by  all  religions  to  the  Christ.  There  is 
no  religion  which  does  not  profess  to  deal  with  sin, 
and  there  is  no  religion  which  does  not  virtually 
confess  its  inability  to  deal  with  it.  There  is  no 
religion  which  does  not  profess  to  discriminate 
between  right  and  wrong,  and  thereby  witness  to 
the  majesty  of  conscience.  There  is  no  religion 
worthy  of  the  name  which  does  not  profess  to  come 
with  a  message  from  God,  and  on  that  ground  to 

E 


50  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

demand  the  attention  of  mankind.  But  surely  thus 
far  the  testimony  of  all  religions  is  in  favour  of, 
rather  than  opposed  to,  the  teaching  of  Him  who 
claimed  to  be  the  Christ.  To  insist,  therefore,  ns 
there  is  a  tendency  to  do  now-a-days,  upon  the  fact 
of  God's  having  spoken  by  other  religions  besides 
our  own  can  really  have  no  other  effect  than  that 
of  exalting  our  own,  unless  it  is  done  Avitli  the  con- 
cealed intention  of  disparaging  it.^  If  Ave  really  be- 
lieve that  God's  message  by  Christ  was  exceptional, 
paramount,  and  final,  then  it  must  be  salutary  in  a 
hiojh  dcOTee  to  trace  the  lines  of  corroborative 
evidence  as  they  discover  themselves  in  the  various 
religions  of  mankind,  and  as  they  converge  towards 
Him  ;  but  if  we  are  to  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that 
God  has  not  spoken  by  Christ  in  any  other  way  than 
He  has  spoken  by  Confucius,  by  Buddha,  or  by 
Muhammad,  in  a  higher  but  not  in  a  different  way, 
then  the  sooner  we  clearly  understand  this  the 
better,  because  sucli  a  conclusion  does  not  appear  to 
be  in  any  sense  compatible  with  the  distinct  teach- 

^  "  Many  are  the  advantages  to  be  derived  from  a  careful  study  of 
otlier  religions,  but  the  greatest  of  all  is  that  it  teaches  us.  to  appreciate 
more  truly  Avhat  we  possess  in  our  own.  When  do  we  feel  the  bless- 
ings of  our  own  country  more  warmly  and  truly  than  when  we  re- 
turn from  abroad  ?  It  is  the  same  with  regard  to  religion.  .  .  . 
We  have  done  so  little  to  gain  our  religion,  we  have  suffered  so  little 
in  the  cause  of  truth,  that  however  highly  we  prize  our  own  Chris- 
tianity, we  never  prize  it  highly  enough  until  we  have  compared  it 
with  the  religions  of  the  rest  of  the  world." — Max  Mxiller,  Chips, 
etc.,  i.  18.3. 


Lect.  II.  yeivish  History.  5 1 

ing  of  Him  whom  we  profess  to  follow.  As  philo- 
sophers we  may  hold  the  balance  evenly  between  all 
relio-ions,  and  strike  it  in  favour  of  none  ;  as  Chris- 
tians  we  cannot  do  so,  because  Christ  demanded 
nothing  less  than  the  entire  surrender  of  the  whole 
man,  and  if  we  refuse  this  we  virtually  reject  Him. 
We  have,  however,  already  attempted  to  show  that 
there  is  very  strong  presumptive  evidence  against  the 
development  of  Christianity  by  any  processes  merely 
natural,  after  the  manner  of  other  religions,  because 
of  its  strong  and  essential  contrast  with  them  ;  and 
consequently  the  more  we  study  other  religions, 
provided  we  study  our  own  fairly,  the  more  we  shall 
be  persuaded  of  its  intrinsic  difference,  and  of  its 
unique  superiority. 

If,  however,  there  was  no  supernatural  origin,  The  pedi- 
properly  so  called,  for  Christianity,  it  is  clear  that  ciuisti- 

1     •  •     •  1  •  r«  1  1  anity 

we  must  seek  its  origin  among  the  maniiold  opera-  known. 
tions  of  nature.  It  must  have  developed  itself  by  a 
process  of  evolution  from  the  spontaneous  energies 
and  resources  of  humanity.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact 
we  know  its  pedigree  if  we  do  not  know  its  origin. 
Christianity  was  the  historical  development  of 
Judaism,  or,  as  it  is  now  called,  Mosaism.  All 
the  first  preachers  of  Christianity  had  been  no- 
toriously disciples  of  Moses,  and  all  zealous  of  the 
law.  The  earliest  home  of  Christianity  was  Pales- 
tine, and  indeed  Jerusalem.  And  in  our  survey  of 
the  religions  of  the  world,  if  there  is  none  that  does 


52  The  Christ  of  Lect.  ii. 

not  bear  indirect  testimony  to  the  relioion  of  Christ, 
tliere  ap})ears  to  be  one  marked  out  from  all  the  rest 
by  the  direct  testimony  that  it  bears  to  Him.  This, 
however,  must  of  course  be  a  matter  of  inference 
and  not  of  proof.  Still  the  inference  may  be  so 
strong  as  to  amount  to  reasonable  proof.  Let  us 
look,  for  example,  at  the  general  tenor  of  Jewish 
history.  The  whole  of  that  history,  as  we  have  it 
in  the  Old  Testament,  was  very  probably  completed 
several  centuries  before  Christ.  It  can  have  under- 
gone no  material  alteration  after  it  was  completed. 
It  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable  that  the  his- 
tory of  Abraham,  for  instance,  was  a  late  addition. 
There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the  lives  of 
the  patriarchs  were  as  early  as  the  Exodus,  j^erhaps 
even  earlier.  But  this  matters  not.  Put  the  date 
of  Genesis  in  its  present  form  as  late  as  the  sixth  or 
seventh  century  before  Christ,  or,  if  it  is  desirable, 
Tiie  pro-    even  later,  monstrous  as  the  theory  may  be,  we  find 

mise  to  . 

Abraham,  lu  the  first  thirty  chapters  the  record  of  a  promise 
given  to  the  patriarchs  no  less  than  five  times  to  the 
efi"ect  that  all  the  families  of  the  earth  shall  be 
blessed  in  them.  Three  times  is  this  promise  given 
with  reference  to  Abraham  ;  twice  directly  to  him ; 
once  indirectly  of  him  ;  once  it  is  repeated  to  Isaac, 
and  once  again  to  Jacob.  The  first  time  it  is  made 
personally  to  Abraham,  the  second  time  it  is  re- 
stricted to  his  seed,  and  the  form  is  slightly  changed 
from  "be  blessed  "  to  "bless  themselves."     In  tliis 


Lkct.  II.  Jewish  History.  53 

changed  form  the  promise  is  renewed  to  Isaac,  while 
to  Jacob  it  is  repeated  as  before,  but  given  to  him 
and  his  seed/ 

^  "  h  Goi  means  '  in  tliee  ;' — that  is,  'in  thee  as  their  type,'  or 
'  in  tliy  faith.'  In  the  original  passage  it  has  the  sense,  '  by  thee  ; ' 
— that  is,  the  form  of  their  blessing  sliall  be,  by  thy  name.  '  Tlie 
Lord  bless  thee  as  he  blessed  Abraham  and  his  descendants.' " — 
Jowett  on  Galatians  iii.  8. 

The  passages  where  the  promise  occurs  are  Gen.  xii.  3,  In  thee  sliall 
all  families  of  the  earth  he  Messed,  spoken  to  Abraham  ;  xviii.  18,  All 
the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  Messed  in  him,  spoken  of  Abraham  ; 
xxii.  18,  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  Mess  themselves, 
spoken  to  Abraham  ;  xxvi.  4,  In  thy  seed  shall  all  the  nations  of  the 
earth  Mess  themselves,  spoken  to  Isaac;  xxviii.  14,  In  thee  and  in  thy 
seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  he  Messed,  spoken  to  Jacob.  In 
the  first  and  last  cases  the  word  used  for  earth  is  nDHNn.  In 
the  other  three  Y'^'^y}.  The  only  other  passages  in  which  the  reflec- 
tive form  "  bless  himself,"  etc.,  is  used,  are  Deut.  xxix.  19  ;  Ps.  Ixxii. 
17  ;  Isaiah  Ixv.  16,  his  ;  Jer.  iv.  2.  As  in  three  out  of  the  five 
passages  in  Genesis  the  form  of  the  verb  is  a  passive,  and  as  there 
are  certain  clear  instances  in  which  the  reflective  form  is  used  in  a 
passive  sense — e.g.  Prov.  xxxi.  30  ;  Micah  vi.  16  ;  Ezek.  xix.  12  ; 
Lam.  iv.  1,  etc. — there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  it  is  at  least 
permissible  to  regard  the  passive  sense  as  the  correct  one  in  all  ; 
but  the  real  import  of  the  promise  is  independent  of  any  such 
grammatical  ambiguity.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  right  way  in 
wliich  to  take  the  words  in  the  five  cases  is  in  the  reflective  sense, 
as  the  passive  is  sometimes  reflective — e.g.  Gen.  iii.  10  ;  Ps,  Iv.  13, 
etc. ;  and  that  the  "  in  thee  "  indicates  not  the  channel  of  the  blessing 
through  which  it  is  derived  but  the  standard  or  example  of  blessing 
according  to  which  it  is  acknowledged,  then  we  have  the  assertion 
that  all  nations  of  the  earth  shall  bless  themselves  in  Abraham 
and  his  seed ;  that  is,  all  nations  of  the  earth  shall  regard  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed  as  the  highest  examples  of  blessing — a  promise 
which  is  either  significant  or  meaningless  ;  if  it  is  meaningless,  liere 
at  any  rate  it  is  for  any  one  wlio  chooses  to  speculate  on  its  possible 
meaning  ;  but  if  it  is  significant,  then  its  only  meaning  can  be  that 


54  The  Christ  of 


In  whatever  way,  therefore,  this  promise  is 
explained,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  a  sub- 
stantive fact  of  the  literature,  and  of  very  ancient 
date.  It  appears,  however,  and  this  is  very  im- 
portant, to  have  been  overlooked,  at  least  to  a  great 
extent,  for  it  was  imbedded  in  another  promise 
which  evidently  took  firmer  hold  of  the  popular  mind, 
as  it  naturally  would — the  promise,  namely,  of  the 
possession  of  the  land.  For  it  is  remarkable  that, 
whenever  this  promise  is  alluded  to,  as  it  often  is 
subsequently,  it  is  the  iidieritance  rather  than  the 
seed  which  is  mentioned.  This  is  the  case,  for 
example,  in  the  Psalms,^  in  the  Pentateuch  very  fre- 
quently, and  in  the  Projihets.     The  oath  to  Abraham 

all  nations  shall  recognise  in  Al)raliani  the  most  consi)icuous  in- 
stance of  blessing,  which  at  least  implies  a  consciousness  on  the  part 
of  the  writer,  whoever  he  was,  that  the  blessing  of  Abraham  was  to 
be  acknowledged  by  the  world  at  large  ;  that  the  world  at  large  was 
to  sit  at  the  feet  of  Abraham  in  admiration  of  the  extent  to  which 
God  had  blessed  him.  This  is  eminently  true  if  Abraham  was  the 
recipient  of  real  blessings  and  a  real  covenant  ;  eminently  untrue  if 
he  had  been  deceived  and  was  the  possessor  of  no  covenant.  It  is 
eminently  true  now  to  those  who  are  partakers  of  the  faith  of  Abra- 
ham ;  it  is  utterly  false  if  the  promise  to  Abraham  was  a  fiction, 
and  the  supposed  fulfilment  of  it  a  mistake.  The  paVticular  form 
or  manner  in  which  St.  Paul  uses  the  promise  in  no  way  affects  the 
inherent  significance  of  the  language,  independently  of  all  gram- 
matical niceties,  if  there  was  any  actual  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, and  if  the  claims  of  Jesus  were  valid.  That  significance 
remains  even  if  we  demur  to  St.  Paul's  argument.  Its  real  signifi- 
cance was  not  given  by  him,  but  by  the  author  <jf  the  promise 
in  Genesis,  whoever  he  was.  ^  E.y.  Ps.  cv.  9,  11. 


Lect.  II.  ycwish  History.  55 

is  commonly  referred  to  the  occupation  of  Canaan, 
and  wlienever  there  is  any  reference  to  the  seed,  it 
is  the  people  that  is  meant.  In  fact,  there  is  no 
repetition  of  the  promise  about  the  person  or  the 
seed,  which  is  five  times  given  in  Genesis,  through- 
out the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Perhaps  the 
nearest  a^Dproach  to  a  repetition  of  it  is  to  be  found 
in  the  words  of  Micah,^  Thou  wilt  'perfor'ni  the  truth 
to  Jacob  and  the  mercy  to  Abraham,  ivhich  thou 
hast  sivorn  unto  our  fathers  from  the  days  of  old. 
This  being  written  probably  in  the  days  of  Hezekiah 
cannot  be  understood  of  the  possession  of  the  land, 
but  may  justly  be  regarded  as  a  spiritual  assurance. 
But  it  must  be  observed  that  it  is  in  itself  con 
elusive  evidence  of  the  existence  in  Micah's  time 
of  the  promise  in  Genesis,  and  that  it  was  then 
very  ancient. 

There  appears,  then,  on  the  surface  of  the  Jewish 
literature,  and  in  one  of  the  earliest  portions  of  it,  a 
promise  to  the  effect  that  in  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed, 
or  shall  bless  themselves.  Whether  any  such 
promise  was  ever  given  or  not,  there  it  is  ;  we  have 
only  now  to  deal  with  literary  facts,  and  this 
apparent  promise  is  a  literary  fact.  Very  far  back 
in  the  annals  of  the  Jewish  nation  we  meet  with 
this  expression  of  a  consciousness  on  their  part  that 
they  were  to  be  the  channels  or  the  standards  of 

■^  Micah  vii.  20.      See  also  Lecture  IV. 


56  The  Christ  of  Lect.  ii. 

blessing  to  mankind ;  for,  whatever  else  the  promise 
is,  it  must  certainly  be  so  regarded.  But  what  is 
equally  strange,  is  that  this  consciousness  appears  to 
a  great  extent  to  have  died  away.  The  nation 
itself  was  isolated,  and  exclusive  in  its  manners, 
habits,  and  sympathies.  In  the  j)rophets,  especially 
in  Isaiah,  there  are  indeed  many  passages  in  which 
this  consciousness  revives,  and  not  only  revives,  but 
increases  in  intensity  and  depth.  This,  however,  is 
in  strong  contrast  to  the  historic  development  of  the 
nation's  life.  While  we  observe  that  there  is  no 
distinct  repetition  of  the  promise  to  Abraham  later 
than  Genesis,  we  cannot  forget  that  in  another  form 
it  is  continually  repeated.  To  take  two  examples 
only,  Behold,  thou  shalt  call  a  nation  tJuit  thou 
hiowest  not ;  and  nations  that  knew  7iot  thee  shall 
run  unto  thee,  because  of  the  Lord  thy  God,  and 
for  the  Holy  One  of  Israel;  for  He  hath  glorifcd 
thee}  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thij  light, 
and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy  rising?  AVhat  is 
this  but  the  same  assurance  given  in  another  form  'i 
In  all  these  cases,  we  must  acknowledge  that  there 
is  the  clear  expression  of  a  deep  consciousness  that 
the  mission  of  Israel  was  to  be  a  blessing  to  the 
nations.  This  is  manifest  at  the  dawn  of  their 
history,  and  it  is  equally  consj)icuous  in  the  palmy 
days  of  Hezekiah's  reign.  But  there  is  only  one 
way  in  which  it  can  be  said  tliat  the  nations  of  the 

^  Isaiah  Iv.  5.  -  Isaiah  Ix.  3. 


Lect.  II.  yewish  History.  5  7 

world  have  derived  blessing  from  Israel,  and  that  is, 
as  the  prophet  indicates,  through  the  knowledge  of 
their  God.  We  must,  therefore,  either  acknowledge 
this  obligation,  or  we  must  repudiate  it.  If  we 
repudiate  it  we  shall  become  involved  in  the  some- 
what difficult  task  of  having  to  show  that  there  was 
no  intrinsic  superiority  in  the  sublime  monotheism 
and  j)ure  morality  of  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  over 
the  vague  and  dubious  conjectures  of  heathenism 
and  mythology  ;  that  the  Psalms,  the  Prophets,  and 
the  Law,  are  at  most  only  on  a  par  with  the  cor- 
responding productions  of  other  nations,  if  indeed 
they  are  not  inferior  to  them.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  we  acknowledo;e  this  obliojation,  then  we  shall 
have  to  account  for  the  fact  that,  ages  before  it  was 
incurred,  this  promise  to  Abraham  was  recorded  in 
the  national  literature,  answering  in  a  remarkable 
way  to  the  subsequent  development  of  events.  For 
in  this  case  we  have  not  to  deal  with  the  question 
of  the  promise  being  given,  but  with  the  fact  of  its 
having  been  recorded. 

When,  however,  we  bear  in  mind  that 
Abraham's  previous  associations  had  been  idola- 
trous, and  that  his  father,  if  not  he  himself,  had 
served  other  gods,  we  shall  haA^e  to  account  for  the 
additional  circumstances  of  his  change  of  faith,  and 
to  consider  that  the  narrative  in  Genesis  is  the  only 
narrative  we  possess  of  the  first  commencement  of  a 
mighty  revolution  of  thought,  which  was  most  im- 


58  The  C/irist  of  lect.  ii. 

portant  and  far-reucliiug  in  its  consequences.  As 
far  as  we  know,  the  origin  of  what  afterwards 
became  Israelitish  monotheism  was  this  very  episode 
in  Abraham's  life  ;  and,  according  to  the  narrative, 
the  form  it  took  was  that  of  a  definite  promise  given 
by  God.  In  other  words,  as  it  is  highly  improbable 
that  Abraham  sliould  have  originated  this  faith  for 
himself ;  ^  and  as,  from  the  facts  before  ns,  it  is 
impossible  to  deny  that  the  most  remarkable  results 
flowed  from  it,  the  only  natural  inference  is  that  the 
reality  of  a  revelation  is  proved  in  the  character  and 
greatness  of  the  thing  revealed.  The  call  of 
Abraham  and  the  promise  given  to  him  stand  out 

^  The  words  of  Professor  Max  Miiller  show  very  strikingly  that 
there  is  only  one  way  in  which  the  spiritual  advance  we  perceive 
in  Abraham  is  to  be  accounted  for.  "  And  if  we  are  asked  how 
this  one  Abraham  preserved  not  only  the  primitive  intuition  of  God 
as  He  had  revealed  Himself  to  all  mankind,  but  passed  through  the 
denial  of  all  other  gods  to  the  knowledge  of  the  one  God,  we 
are  content  to  answer  that  it  was  by  a  special  Divine  Revelation. 
We  do  not  indulge  in  theological  phraseology,  but  we  mean  every 
woid  to  its  fullest  extent.  The  Father  of  Truth  chooses  His  own 
prophets,  and  He  speaks  to  them  in  a  voice  stronger  than  the  voice  of 
thunder.  It  is  the  same  inner  voice  through  which  God  speaks  to 
all  of  us.  That  voice  may  dwindle  away,  and  become  hardly 
audible  ;  it  may  lose  its  Divine  accent,  and  sink  into  the  language 
of  worldly  prudence  ;  but  it  may  also,  from  time  to  time,  assume  its 
real  nature,  with  the  chosen  of  God,  and  sound  into  their  ears  as  a 
voice  from  Heaven.  A  '  divine  instinct '  may  sound  more  scientific 
and  less  theological  ;  but  in  truth  it  would  neither  be  an  appropri- 
ate name  for  what  is  a  gift  or  grace  accorded  to  but  few,  nor  would 
it  be  a  more  scientific,  i.e.  a  more  intelligible  word  than  '  special 
revelation.'" — Chips  from  a  German  Worksliop,  i.  373. 


Lect.  II. 


Jewish  History.  59 


ill  marked  contrast  to  all  that  can  be  explained  on 
merely  natural  principles,  and  liere  if  anywhere  we 
are  constrained  to  admit  the  operation  of  forces  and 
influences  beyond  the  limits  of  nature.  If  we  do 
not  postulate  the  existence  and  action  of  a  cause 
which  cannot  be  traced  home  to  nature,  we  must 
leave  unaccounted  for  and  unaccountable  great, 
spiritual  results  which  it  is  equally  impossible  to 
deny.  When,  however,  we  further  take  into  con- 
sideration the  fact  that  this  particular  promise  to 
Abraham  exists  nowhere  in  the  Old  Testament  ^  so 
plainly  as  it  does  in  Genesis,  till  an  allusion  to  it 
reappears  in  the  first  verse  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel 
and  in  St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  ;  we  must 
then  put  over  against  a  very  ancient  recorded  pro- 
mise, which  has  all  the  appearance  of  a  prophecy, 
the  no  less  certain  historical  fact  of  the  birth  of  a 
remarkable  personage  who  was  alleged  to  have  ful- 
filled it,  and  whose  advent  would  have  been  its 
complete  fulfilment  if  all  or  nearly  all  that  was 
related  of  him  was  true.^ 

^  A  remarkable  allusion  to  hoth  the  promises  is  found  in  Joshua 
xxiv.  3,  13,  but  the  first  is  subordinate  and  incidental.  This  nar- 
rative, however,  not  only  presupposes  that  in  Genesis,  but  implies 
familiarity  with  it  among  the  people  for  whose  benefit  this  was 
written.  It  is  also  valuable  as  showing  the  earliest  interpretation  of 
Genesis  xxii.  18.      Cf.  Hosea  i.  10  (ii.  1). 

"  For  the  contrast  between  the  character  of  Abraham  and  the 
highest  analogous  Hindu  conceptions,  see  Hardwick,  Christ  and 
other  Masters,  part  ii.  164  seq. 


6o  The  Christ  of  Lect.  ii. 

The  Exo-  We  pass  on,  liowever,  to  notice  other  points  in 

the  historic  development  of  the  national  life  of 
Israel.  First,  then,  comes  the  long  period  of  bond- 
age in  Egypt,  which,  according  to  the  narrative,  had 
been  distinctly  foretold  to  Abraham.^  The  memory 
of  this  bondage  and  of  the  redemption  from  it,  was 
too  deeply  imprinted  on  the  national  mind  and  on 
the  national  literature  for  either  one  or  the  other 
to  be  for  one  moment  doubted.  Nor,  on  the  sup- 
position of  a  jyost  eventum  prophecy,  is  it  easy  to 
understand  why  there  should  have  been  left  upon 
the  face  of  it  a  disagreement  with  the  ostensible 
record  of  its  fulfilment.^  While,  however,  we  can- 
not prove  the  actual  occurrence  of  the  prophecy, 
from  which  of  course  the  whole  supernatural 
character  of  the  narrative  and  its  Divine  claims 
would  follow,  we  can  show  that  a  large  variety  of 
circumstances  in  the  history  points  consistently  to 
the  inference  that  we  must  make  allowance  for  the 
operation  of  other  than  merely  natural  agencies. 
Abraham's  actual  knowledge  of  God  is  itself  the 
strongest  argument  for  a  direct  revelation,  since, 
under  the  circumstances,  it  cannot  be  accounted 
for  without ;  but  when  we  have  arrived  thus  far 
the  antecedent  improbability  of  certain  additional 
features  of  the  same  narrative  is  to  a  large  extent 
removed. 

And  so  if  we  find  a  highly  exceptional  dolivcr- 

'    Gen.  XV.  l;3.  -  Ex.  xii.  40,  41. 


Lect.  II.  Jcivish  History.  6i 

ance  occurring  in  tlie  history  of  tlie  people,  which 
in  its  substantial  features  cannot  be  questioned ; — 
as,  for  instance,  that  it  was  accomjjlished  without  a 
blow  being  struck  on  their  part ;  that  it  was  pre- 
ceded by  a  variety  of  national  calamities  befalling 
the  Egyptians,  which  if  not  entirely  peculiar  Avere 
at  least  of  peculiar  severity ;  that  this  deliverance 
was  brought  about  by  means  of  a  person  who  had 
himself  undergone  a  long  period  of  probation  in 
Egypt  and  in  exile  from  Egypt ;  that  he  laid  the 
foundation  of  his  people's  greatness  and  of  their 
national  peculiarities,  as  well  as  of  their  very  national 
existence,  by  giving  them  a  law  which  he  succeeded 
in  persuading  them  was  of  Divine  origin,  and 
which  was  undoubtedly  marked  by  many  features 
of  exceptional  prudence,  not  to  say  of  Divine 
wisdom  ;  that,  under  the  circumstances,  it  is  hard 
to  account  for  the  profound  submission  with  which 
the  Law  was  immediately  received,  if  its  promulga- 
tion was  not  accompanied  with  circumstances  of 
special  solemnity  and  awe,  such  as  those  which  are 
recorded  in  the  very  narrative  to  which  we  are  in- 
debted for  the  code  itself ;  that  the  position  occu- 
pied by  this  person  was  entirely  "unique  in  the 
annals  of  the  nation,  so  that,  in  the  long  roll  of 
their  kings  and  prophets,  no  second  arose  like  him  ; 
that  he  claimed  to  stand  to  his  people  in  the 
position  of  a  mediator  with  God,  and  to  be  the 
bearer  of  a  message  from   God;   that  this   claim 


The  wan- 
derin.rs. 


62  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

must  at  least  in  part  be  judged  by  tlie  way  in 
wliich  it  was  advanced,  and  by  the  results  which 
followed  it,  as  well  as  by  the  character  of  the  mes- 
sage itself;  that  it  is  equally  hard  to  maintain  the 
charge  of  imposture  against  Moses  in  the  face  of  all 
the  evidence  which  confronts  us,  and  to  acquit  him 
of  that  charge  if  the  narrative  which  professes,  in 
part  at  any  rate,  to  be  by  him,  and  which,  if  not 
genuine,  at  least  claims  to  be  authentic,  is  not  sub- 
stantially trustworthy  as  a  narrative  of  fact ;  that 
from  the  whole  tenor  of  the  subsequent  history  and 
literature  it  is  hardly  possible  to  over-estimate 
the  greatness  of  his  character  and  mission,  and 
yet  at  the  same  time  is  not  possible  to  estimate 
them  duly  and  reject  the  general  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  record ; — if,  I  say,  we  find  all  this, 
which  we  doubtless  do  find,  it  becomes  a  question 
whether  an  antecedent  probability  is  not  thereby 
created  in  favour  of  the  highly  excej^tional  signifi- 
cance which  the  record  attributes  to  the  history.  We 
are  undoubtedly  dealing  with  a  series  of  events  which 
are  altogether  beyond  the  scope  of  ordinary  human 
circumstance  or  national  experience.  Is  it  not  jdos- 
sible  that  their  significance  in  the  scheme  of  God's 
providential  government  may  be  something  more 
than  ordinary  ?     Nay,  must  it  not  be  so  ? 

Another  feature  altogether  exceptional  is  to  be 
noted  in  the  wanderings  that  followed  the  Exodus. 
In  the  face  of  the  corroborative  evidence  aff'orded 


Lect.  II.  Jewish  History.  63 

by  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets,  it  is  not  possible 
to  doubt  the  truth  of  their  main  incidents — for  ex- 
ample, their  general  character  and  long  duration.  ^ 
In  fact,  so  deeply  did  the  influence  of  the  nomad 
life  in  the  wilderness  imprint  itself  on  the  national 
character,  that  traces  of  it  may  be  said  to  exist  at 
the  present  day.  And  yet,  to  discover  any  satis- 
factory natural  causes  upon  which  the  wanderings 
may  be  adequately  accounted  for  is  not  easy.  How 
is  it  that  a  lawgiver  whose  energy  and  genius  never 
failed  him,  having  delivered  his  people  from  the 
thraldom  of  the  then  mightiest  nation  of  the  world, 
and  having  successfully  maintained  their  independ- 
ence against  the  tribes  and  kingdoms  of  the  desert, 
should  be  unable  to  crown  the  work  of  his  life  by 
leading  them  to  the  goal  of  their  common  desires ; 
but,  after  wasting  forty  years  of  fruitless  lingering 
in  the  desert,  should  deliberately  consign  that  work 
to  a  younger  officer  of  his  own  appointment,  who 
was  not  personally  better  fitted  to  accomplish  it 
than  he  was  himself?  These  things  are  in  them- 
selves so  improbable  that  we  must  either  reject 
them  historically,  which  we  cannot  do,  or  else  taken 
together  they  point  us  to  the  only  reason  for  them, 
which  is  that  assigned. 

^  See,  for  instance,  Ps,  Ixviii.  7,  8  ;  Ixxviii.  13  &eq.;  Ixxx.  8  ; 
Ixxxi.  5-10  ;  xcv.  10;  cv.  39-44  ;  cvi.  17-19  ;  cxxxv.  cxxxvi. 
Hosea  xi.  1  ;  xii.  13  ;  xiii.  4.  Amos  v.  2r),  26.  Micah  vi,  4,  5  ; 
vii.  15,  etc.  etc. 


64  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  the  same  cliaracteristics 
confront  us  at  every  turn.  As  we  read  page  after 
page  of  the  history,  we  are  equally  perplexed 
whether  to  take  it  with  such  supernatural  elements 
as  are  inseparable  therefrom,  or  to  attempt,  how- 
ever hopelessly,  to  reduce  it  to  such  dimensions  as 
may  appear  not  to  transcend  the  limits  of  the  in- 
telligible and  the  ordinary.  For  example,  the  main 
features  of  the  occupation  of  Canaan  are  undeni- 
able.^ And  everywhere  the  most  conspicuous  of 
those  features  is  the  consciousness  with  which  the 
whole  nation  is  possessed  that  they  are  about  to  in- 
herit a  country  promised  to  their  fathers.  The 
reason  of  this  persuasion  is  apparent  on  the  surface 
of  their  literature.  The  poetry,  prophecy,  and 
history,  are  alike  imprinted  with  it.  If  we 
suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  promise  was  an 
after-thought  of  the  literature,  then  the  history 
becomes  unintelligible.  If  we  reject  the  history  as 
incredible,  then  the  literature  and  history  alike 
become  unmeaning  and  inexplicable.  If  we  con- 
cede the  promise  as  an  actual  fact,  then  doubtless 
a  sufficient  impulse  is  discovered  for  the  current 
of  the  history  ;  but  then,  at  the  same  time,  the  germ 
of  the  supernatural  is  conceded,  and  the  foundation 
laid  thereby  for  its  occasional  if  not  continual  pre- 
sence afterwards.  And  it  is  this  general  broad 
conclusion  and  the  natural  inference  of  this  dilemma 

■•   See  Psalm  xliv.  1-3  ;  Ixxviii.  55  ;  cxxxv.  12  ;  cxxxvi.  21,  22. 


Lect.  II.  Jeivish  History.  65 

which  is  vastly  more  important  than  the  resolution, 
one  way  or  the  other,  of  any  question  as  to  whether 
the  earth's  diurnal  motion,  for  example,  was  arrested 
at  the  command  of  Joshua,  or  the  like. 

The  promise  given  to  Abraham,  however,  might  The  pro- 
be less  significant  if  it  stood  alone,  remarkable  as  ^'  '^ ' 
it  would  still  be  in  connection  with  the  history  ; 
but  it  does  not,  and  before  we  close  the  last  of  the 
books  of  Moses  we  meet  with  another  promise  in 
strong  contrast  with  it — the  promise,  namely,  that 
he  gives  the  people,  of  a  prophet  who  shall  arise 
from  among  them  like  unto  himself.^  Now  this 
promise,  however  it  is  interpreted,  has  the  advan- 
tage of  being  very  clear  and  definite,  and  it  is 
furthermore  distinguished  by  a  comment  which  is 
passed  upon  it  in  the  book  itself.  For  we  are  dis- 
tinctly told^  that  there  arose  not  a  prophet  in 
Israel  like  unto  Moses  after  his  death.  It  is  im- 
possible, therefore,  that  the  words  can  refer  to 
Joshua.  But  it  is  equally  impossible  not  to  accept 
them  as  a  promise  or  prophecy.  It  is  clear  that 
they  were  intended  and  understood  as  such.  The 
comment  referred  to  seems  to  imply  no  less.  And 
the  later  we  place  the  date  of  that  comment  the 
more  significant  it  becomes.  But  in  point  of  fact 
we  are  independent  of  any  such  considerations,  for 
down  to  the  time  of  Malachi  there  is  no  name  in 
the  annals  of  the  nation  so  great  as  that  of  Moses. 

^   Deut.  xviii.  15  seq.  '  Deut.  xxxiv.  10. 


66  The  Christ  of 


Tlie  moral,  therefore,  of  the  promise  is  that  the 
national  exj)ectation  was  aroused,  but  the  entire 
course  of  the  history  gives  no  hint  of  its  being 
realised.  As  far  as  the  testimony  of  fact  goes,  the 
last  verses  of  Deuteronomy  might  have  been  added 
when  the  canon  of  the  Old  Testament  was  closed, 
for  the  Second  Temple  arose  in  its  glory  without 
witnessing  the  rise  of  any  proj)het  who  could  claim 
to  be  the  successor  of  Moses,  But,  then,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  is  impossible  to  regard  the  promise 
as  a  later  interpolation.  For  it  is  put  into  the  lips 
of  Moses.  And  if  we  can  imagine  for  a  moment 
any  late  writer,  such  as  Jeremiah  for  example, 
falsely  ascribing  a  promise  like  this  to  Moses, 
what  possible  meaning  could  it  have  had  ?  The 
verdict  of  history  had  done  nothing  but  falsify 
the  hope  expressed,  and  the  remark  at  the  end 
of  the  book  precluded  the  possibility  of  its  being 
interpreted  of  Joshua,  so  that  we  are  wholly  at  a 
loss  to  understand  it.  And  yet  here,  on  the  very 
surface  of  the  Pentateuch,  ostensibly  the  oldest 
portion  of  the  Jewish  literature,  we  find  this  clear, 
definite,  distinct  jDromise,  to  the  fulfilment  of  which 
the  rest  of  that  literature  bears  no  evidence.  In 
the  light  of  these  facts  we  are  doubtless  at  liberty  to 
appeal  to  the  New  Testament  in  proof  that  the  expect- 
ation thus  aroused  in  the  nation  had  not  died  out 
in  the  time  of  Christ ;  but  to  what  can  that  expect- 
ation be  referred,  if  not  to  tliis  unique  promise  ? 


lect,  11.  Jewish  History,  67 

If,  then,  the  consciousness  of  Abraham  Avas  that 
his  seed  should  be  the  blessing  of  the  world,  the 
consciousness  of  Moses  was  that  his  prophetic  office 
should  give  place  to  Another.  Each  of  these  facts 
on.  the  surface  of  the  literature  is  too  patent  to  be 
denied.  They  stand  written  in  clear  and  legible 
characters  that  cannot  be  mistaken,  and  they  are 
really  typical  of  the  rest  of  the  literature.  From 
first  to  last  it  is  marked  in  an  extraordinary  manner, 
if  we  may  so  say,  with  the  consciousness  of  being 
preparatory  for  something  yet  to  come.  There  is 
a  fearlessness  of  predictive  assertion  about  it.  Deal 
with  the  several  predictions  one  by  one  as  we  may, 
this  general  characteristic  remains  indestructible. 
It  is  stamped  on  the  history  no  less  than  on  those 
writings  which  are  ostensibly  and  professedly  pro- 
phetical. We  meet  with  it  as  early  as  Abraham, 
and  we  encounter  it  again  in  the  time  of  Moses. 
It  is  indeed  possible  to  deny  that  the  writer  of 
these  two  passages  intended  them  to  be  predictions, 
but  it  is  not  possible  to  deny  that  they  have  the 
form  of  prophecy  and  the  appearance  of  being  pre- 
dictive. On  the  other  hand,  if  we  accept  them 
as  actual  prophecies,  we  shall  probably  not  deny 
that  they  were  fidfiUed  in  Christ. 

The  Jewish  history,  moreover,  as  a  whole,  is 
distinguished  from  all  other  history  by  its  extra- 
ordinary parabolic  or  didactic  character.  This  is 
true  at  whatever  period  we  take  it.     The  history 


The  ki 


68  The  C J  wist  of  lect.  ii. 

of  the  Avanderings,  for  example,  is  a  wonderful 
l)icture  of  liiimaii  life.  Tlie  history  of  the  occu- 
pation and  of  the  judges  is  scarcely  less  so.  The 
conduct  of  Israel  is  like  the  conduct  of  a  wayward 
child,  or  of  a  person  whom  adversity  cannot  teach, 
and  the  discipline  to  which  the  nation  is  subjected 
is  of  a  kind  similar  to  theirs.  But  of  no  other 
history  is  this  true  to  anything  like  the  same 
extent.  It  is  as  though  this  nation  were  under 
the  immediate  guidance  and  the  special  discipline 
of  heaven,  and  this  is  shown  quite  as  much  hy  the 
natural  as  by  the  supernatural  features  of  the  his- 
tory. Leave  out  every  incident  which  does  not 
fall  strictly  within  the  limits  of  natural  experience, 
and  you  have  still  in  the  development  of  the 
national  history  what  may  well  be  regarded  as 
the  result  of  peculiar  Divine  direction,  and  what 
has  all  the  appearance  of  being  a  model  national 
history,  designed  expressly  for  the  instruction  of  all 
other  nations. 

After  the  subjugation  of  Canaan,  the  great 
turning  point  in  Israel's  history  is  the  election  of 
a  king.  Under  Samuel  the  offices  of  judge  and 
projjhet  were  combined — he  was  the  last  of  the 
judges,  the  first  of  the  prophets  after  Moses.  The 
movement  in  favour  of  monarchy,  however,  did 
not  proceed  from  him,  but  from  the  people ;  but 
the  first  monarch  was  Samuel's  appointment;  so 
that  the  king  was  developed  out  of  the  office  of 


Lect.  II.  yeivish  History.  69 

the  judge,  and  was  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of 
the  propliet.  The  history  of  the  choice  and  sub- 
sequent rejection  of  Saul  is  so  remarkable  that  it  is 
difficult  to  divest  it  of  all  supernatural  elements. 
Why  was  Saul  accepted  by  the  nation  as  their 
lawful  sovereign  ?  Mainly  on  account  of  Samuel's 
appointment.  Why  was  it  afterwards  understood 
that  he  was  rejected  and  that  another  was  chosen 
in  his  place  ?  Solely  because  Samuel  had  declared 
it.  He  was  the  virtual  king-maker ;  he  put  down 
one  and  set  up  another.  Was  his  authority,  then, 
a  pretence  merely  or  a  shadow  ?  Were  the  whole 
nation  duped  into  believing  Samuel  to  be  a  prophet 
of  the  Lord,  when  he  was  only  self-deceived  if  he 
was  not  imposing  on  them  ?  Upon  reviewing  the 
history  calmly,  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that 
Samuel's  conduct  was  that  of  a  self- deceiver  or 
an  impostor.  There  must  have  been  truth  at  the 
bottom  of  it,  as  witnessed  by  its  effects.  But  if 
there  was  truth  at  the  bottom  of  it,  was  it  not 
truth  which  implied  a  revelation  ?  For  if  there 
was  no  authoritative  Divine  communication,  then 
there  was  imposture  or  self-deception — that  is  to 
say,  there  was  falsehood  and  not  truth  at  the 
bottom  of  Samuel's  conduct,  in  which  case  the 
entire  framework  of  the  subsequent  history  becomes 
unintelligible.  We  cannot  understand  how  it  was 
that'  one  dynasty  should  have  supplanted  another ; 
that   the    supplanting   dynasty  should    have   been 


70  The  CJu^ist  of  lect.  II. 

believed,  as  it  was  l)elieved,  to  be  grounded  solely 
on  tlie  Divine  word,  and  tliat  tliis  belief  should 
have  been  ratified  by  the  event,  and  not  subse- 
quently created  by  it,  as  the  evidence  of  circum- 
stances shows  it  was  not,  if  all  this  rested  on  the 
mere  assertion  of  a  professed  prophet,  who  claimed 
to  speak  in  the  name  and  with  the  direct  authority 
of  God,  and  whose  conduct  cannot  be  sufficiently 
accounted  for  if  he  did  not. 
Summary.  Tlius  far,  thcu,  the  history  shows  us  in  antici- 
pation a  seed,  or  a  world-wide  blessing  by  the 
seed,  a  prophet,  and  a  king.  As  yet,  however, 
it  has  given  us  nothing  more  than  the  hope  of 
any  one  of  them.  As  there  was  no  prophet  be- 
tween Moses  and  Samuel,  so  in  the  case  of  Samuel 
himself,  though  the  first  of  the  prophets,  there 
was  no  likeness  to  Moses.  The  imagination  of 
the  people  was  ever  being  disciplined  into  the 
desire  of  the  ideal  prophet  through  acquaintance 
with  the  actual  prophets.  It  was  so  likewise  with 
the  king,  but  by  an  inverse  process.  Their  desire 
for  a  king  was  spontaneous,  prompted  by  the 
examples  of  kingly  power  and  glory  which  they 
liad  around  them.  Their  conception  of  the  prophet 
was  based  upon  recollection  and  experience,  while 
it  was  stimulated  to  a  yet  greater  ideal.  No  reality 
could  surpass  the  conception  of  the  prophet  which 
was  enshrined  in  their  memory.  But  the  ideal 
king  never  came.      The  hope  of  the  nation  was 


Lect.  II. 


Jezvish  History.  7 1 


fixed  on  Saul,  but  Saul  was  rejected,  and  his  reign 
was  not  one  of  glory.  Then  the  nation's  hopes 
were  transferred  to  David,  and  in  due  time  their 
allegiance  became  his ;  but  it  was  not  till  the  reign 
of  Solomon  that  the  visions  of  consolidated  strength, 
peace,  and  prosperity,  naturally  associated  with  the 
thought  of  a  king,  were  realised,  and  they  were 
realised  for  a  little  while  only  to  be  destroyed 
the  more  irretrievably.  The  era  of  Solomon  was 
never  surpassed,  and  it  was  not  repeated ;  for  a 
time  it  once  and  again  revived,  but  only  to  relapse 
into  imbecility,  and  to  result  in  disappointment ; 
and  with  the  captivity  of  Zedekiah  the  hopeful 
line  of  Judah's  kings  was  brought  to  a  close.  On 
looking  back  over  the  completed  list,  we  cannot 
say  that  the  ideal  king  had  come ;  and  long  after- 
wards, when  the  cry  was  heard.  We,  have  no  king 
hut  CcBsai'^  it  sounded  as  though  the  hope  itself 
had  been  extinguished  by  despair. 

And  yet,  here  again,  it  is  not  possible  to  survey  The  hop. 
the  history  and  investigate  the  foundations  of  the  gi°ounci- 
hope,  and  not  discover  that  there  was  valid  ground 
for  it.  For  example,  we  find,  according  to  the 
history,  that  both  Saul  and  Jonathan  are  aware 
that  David  is  to  be  the  king.  Can  it  be  that  such 
a  statement  was  invented  in  order  to  flatter  the 
reigning  house  of  David  ?  We  cannot  explain  its 
invention  thus.  Indeed,  we  cannot  understand  the 
history  of  Saul  at  all,  except  on  the  supposition  that 


72  The  Christ  of  Lf.ct.  ii. 

he  regarded  David  as  the  destined  heir  to  his 
throne.  But  why  slioukl  lie  have  so  regarded  him  ? 
David  had  no  pretensions  to  suppLant  Saul,  nor 
any  prospect  or  hope  of  supj)hanting  him,  except  on 
the  ground  of  a  distinct  promise  given  by  Samueh 
This  promise  was  given  him,  according  to  the 
narrative,  while  he  was  yet  young,  and  before  his 
combat  with  the  giant  of  Gath,  which  might  have 
made  him  a  favourite  with  the  people/  AVhy  should 
it  have  been  given  him  ?  He  was  the  youngest  of  his 
father's  house,  and  his  father's  house  apparently 
not  then  conspicuous.^  Samuel  does  not  appear  to 
have  known  David,  or  even  to  have  known  of  him 
when  he  was  sent  to  anoint  him.  We  can  dis- 
cover, therefore,  no  motive  for  his  choice  and  no 
principle  in  his  selection.  Without  doing  un- 
natural violence  to  the  whole  tenor  of  the  history, 
corroborated  as  it  is  by  the  independent  evidence  of 
many  other  passages,^  it  is  impossible  to  take  into 
account  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
anointing  of  David,  and  not  acknowledge  that  we 
are  led  up  by  natural  and  unavoidable  inference  to 
the  very  verge  of  something  which  we  cannot  ex- 
plain naturally,  and  which  has  all  the  appearance  of 
being  a  definite  promise  from  the  Unseen,  but  how 
communicated  we  cannot  tell.     The  narrative  itself, 

1    1  Sam.  xvi.  1-13. 

'■^  See  Grove's  art.  "  Jesse  "  in  the  Dictmiari/  of  the  Bible. 

3  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxviii.  70;  Ixxxix.  19,  20,  seq.,  etc. 


lect.  II.  Jczvish  History.  73 

no  less  than  the  promise,  is  deeply  imbued  with 
these  extraordinary  elements,  and  unless  we  tear  it 
shred  from  shred,  we  cannot  get  rid  of  them ;  and 
yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  cannot  account  for  them. 
They  receive  a  certain  elucidation  from  tlie  process 
of  events,  and  if  we  reject  that  there  remains  no 
other. 

If,  however,  we  attempt  to  resolve  the  orioiual  The  diffi- 

-r^         •  -1      •  r.  -I   •  cultyof 

promise  to  David  into  an  act  01  mere  arbitrary  explaining 
selection  on  the  part  of  Samuel,  that  is  not  the 
only  significant  incident  we  have  to  explain.  If 
Samuel's  choice  had  been  sufficient  to  point  out 
David  as  the  future  king,  and  to  excite  Saul's  jealousy 
in  consequence,  would  not  his  influence  have  been 
sufficient  to  dis^^lace  Saul  in  favour  of  David,  seeing 
that  it  was  to  the  same  influence  that  Saul  himself 
owed  his  crown  ?  But,  instead  of  this,  after  Samuel 
has  anointed  David,  we  hear  no  more  of  liim,  with 
the  single  exception  of  the  episode  in  Naioth,^  till 
we  are  told  of  his  death  and  burial ;  on  the  other 
hand,  we  do  hear  of  Jonathan,  the  heir-apparent, 
quietly  acquiescing  in  the  career  marked  out  for 
David,  as  well  as  of  his  unexampled  and  nobly-dis- 
interested friendship  for  him.^  And  it  is  impossible 
to  deny  that,  after  a  series  of  years,  David  not  only 
sat  on  the  throne  which  was  Jonathan's  by  inherit- 
ance, but  was  able  successfully  to  consolidate  his 

^   1   Sam,  xix.  18  ;  xxv.  1.     Cf.  xv.  35. 
2   1  Sam.  xviii.  1-xxiii.  18.     2  Sam.  ix. ;  xxi.  7. 


74  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

throne,  and  to  establish  his  dynasty.  If,  then,  we 
resolve  Samuel's  choice  of  David  into  an  instance 
of  remarkable  foresight,  we  can  scarcely  account 
for  it  even  on  that  theory  without  the  assistance  of 
other  than  merely  natural  powers ;  and  we  have  yet 
further  difficulties  to  contend  with  in  the  life  of 
David  himself. 
The  For  we  find  that  after  David  is  securely  seated 

Nathan,  ou  the  tlirouc  of  Isracl,  he  receives  another  pro- 
phetic message  from  Nathan,  which  conditionally 
promises  him  the  everlasting  possession  of  the 
throne.^  That  such  a  message  was  delivered  to  him 
there  is  not  a  shadow  of  doubt;  the  only  question  is, 
From  whom  did  it  come  ?  Was  it  nothing  more 
than  the  repetition,  in  another  form  and  by  another 
prophet,  of  the  somewhat  similar  act  performed  by 
Samuel  ?  Was  it  nothing  more  than  the  adulation 
of  a  courtier  decked  out  in  a  religious  and  pro- 
phetic garb  ?  However  we  try  to  account  for  it, 
we  have  to  face  this  fact,  that  the  last  king  of 
Judah  was  the  lineal  descendant  of  David  ;  and  un- 
less it  can  be  proved  that  the  narrative  in  Samuel 
was  written  subsequently  to  the  dissolution  of  the 
monarchy,  it  is  impossible  to  divest  that  narrative 
altogether  of  its  predictive  features,  or  to  deny  to 
them  a  certain  correspondence  in  fact,  which  chiefly 
surprises  us  because  it  is  not  greater  and  more 
minute.     The  subsequent  history  of  the  kingdom, 

^   2  Sam.  vii.     Cf.  Ps.  cxxxii.  11,  etc. 


Lect.  II.  Jetvish  History.  75 

and  the  disastrous  rent  it  suffered  after  the  reign  of 
Solomon,  is  itself  the  best  evidence  of  the  authen- 
ticity of  the  narrative  in  Samuel ;  because  that 
could  not  have  been  fabricated  after  events  had  to 
a  large  extent  falsified  the  promise  it  contained. 
And  yet,  if  we  accept  it  as  authentic,  we  find  our- 
selves unable  to  explain  it  on  merely  natural  prin- 
ciples. There  can  be  no  question  that  the  most 
exalted  aspirations  were  raised  in  the  minds  of  the 
people  as  to  the  permanence  of  their  kingdom  in 
the  line  of  David. 

We  find,  moreover,  that  the  original  promise  to  illustrated 
David  is  to  a  certain  extent  illustrated  by  the  his-  great  sin. 
tory  of  his  great  crime.  If  criticism  has  asked  us 
to  believe  that  the  fifty-first  Psalm  is  no  record  or 
relic  of  this  incident,  he  must  be  a  bold  critic  who 
shall  seek  to  persuade  us  that  the  incident  itself 
never  occurred.  There  can  be  no  sort  of  question 
that  we  have  in  the  Second  Book  of  Samuel  the 
plain  unvarnished  narrative  of  its  occurrence.  But 
the  rebuke  which  is  given  by  Nathan  virtually 
assumes  the  main  features  of  the  previous  history. 
No  rebuke  more  severe  was  ever  administered  to  a 
king,  and  it  was  coupled  with  denunciations  the 
most  terrible  ;  and  yet  it  was  none  other  than  this 
same  Nathan  who  had  promised  to  David  the 
perpetual  establishment  of  his  kingdom.  If  we 
reject  the  one  event  as  historic,  we  have  equal 
reason  to  reject  the  other.     Tremendous,  however. 


76  The  Christ  of 


as  the  rebuke  was,  it  did  not  revoke  the  original 
promise  while  it  expressly  recognised  the  authority 
by  which  David  reigned.^  We  have  to  account, 
then,  for  the  unflinching  boldness  of  the  prophet, 
for  the  deference  and  submission  with  which  his 
message  was  received,  as  well  as  for  the  deliberate 
confidence  with  which  both  the  promise  and  the 
rebuke  were  given.  Can  these  together  be  resolved 
into  the  mere  effects  of  the  mental  ascendency  over 
the  king  which  the  prophet  had  acquired  ?  It 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  the  case  of  the 
rebuke  truth  and  justice  were  at  any  rate  on  the 
side  of  Nathan,  and  that  the  denunciations  delivered 
were  verified  in  fact.  Were  these  denunciations 
inserted  in  order  to  add  a  mysterious  import  to  the 
events  which  afterwards  occurred  ?  Was  the  narra- 
tive of  the  events  framed  in  order  to  suit  the 
mysterious  character  of  the  denunciations  ?  Or  is 
the  way  in  which  the  whole  are  intertwined  and 
interwoven  in  the  narrative  but  one  indication  out 
of  many  that  there  are  elements  of  supernatural 
dealing  in  the  entire  transaction,  which  it  is  not 
possible  satisfactorily  to  explain  ?  Does  not  the 
conduct  of  the  prophet  and  the  king  from  first  to 
last  show  that,  understand  or  account  for  it  as  we 
may,  there  must  have  been  more  in  the  title  by 
which  David  held  his  throne  than  the  vain  illusions 
of  self-deception  on  either  side ;  and  that,  as  we  are 

^    2  Sam.  xii.  7  seg. 


Lfxt.  II.  yezvish  History.  77 

dealing  with  undoubted  facts,  the  only  theory 
which  will  adequately  resolve  them  is  the  admis- 
sion of  the  agency  of  an  unseen  power  working  in 
natural  human  history  in  a  manner  highly  excep- 
tional and  above  nature  ?  In  other  words,  the 
narrative  of  the  foundation  of  David's  kingdom, 
which  is  distinctly  asserted  to  have  been  Divine,  is 
of  such  a  character  that  its  foundation  cannot  be 
satisfactorily  regarded  as  merely  human. 

There  is,  however,  abundant  evidence  to  show  The  infer- 

ence  sug- 

that  David's  kingdom,  great  as  it  was,  could  only  be  gested. 
regarded  as  the  promise  of  one  greater.  The  chief 
characteristic  of  its  foundation  was  its  hope  of  per- 
petuity and  its  anticipation  of  an  endless  future. 
Solomon  was  in  some  respects  a  greater  sovereign 
than  David,  and  he  was  enabled  to  achieve  what  his 
father  was  not  permitted  to  commence.  His.  glory, 
however,  did  not  last  long,  and  at  his  death  it 
seemed  as  though  the  hopes  that  were  cherished  by 
and  for  David  were  about  to  be  falsified.  The 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  fell  away  from  that  of 
Judah  ;  but  here  again,  as  before,  not  without  pro- 
phetic announcements  on  the  part  of  Ahijah  the 
Shilonite,  which  fully  recognised  and  ratified  all 
that  had  been  promised  to  David,  though  at  the 
same  time  they  partially  revoked  and  modified  it. 
The  promise,  which  was  at  the  first  conditional,  is 
now  conditionally  and  to  a  certain  extent  repeated 
to    Jeroboam,   and  the  seed   of  David   is    to    he 


78  The  Christ  of 


I.ECT.  II. 


afflicted,  hut  not  for  ever}  Relioboam  was  for- 
l)idden  by  Sliemaiah  to  attempt  to  reduce  tlie 
alienated  tribes  by  force,  because  tlieir  defection  was 
declared  to  be  from  God.^  The  office  of  the  prophet, 
therefore,  is  continually  asserting  its  authority  over 
successive  kings,  and  being  acknowledged  by  them  ; 
and  as  the  broad  principles  on  which  it  is  discharged 
are  uniform,  so  there  is  no  essential  divergence  in 
the  definite  messaoje  delivered.  The  orimnal  de- 
cision  of  Nathan  is  acknowledged,  and  the  validity  of 
David's  title  is  confirmed.  All  this  is  the  more 
difficult  to  account  for  if  we  attempt  to  eviscerate 
the  original  promise  of  its  Divine  element. 
David's  As,  however,  we  proceed,  we  see  the  original  sta- 

tains  itself,  bility  of  David's  line  maintaining  itself.  The  condi- 
tion implied  in  all  the  Divine  promises,  and  expressly 
named  to  Jeroboam,  was  not  fulfilled  by  him  any 
more  than  it  had  been  by  Solomon  ;  and  in  the 
second  generation  his  dynasty  was  overthrown,^  to  be 
succeeded  by  others  no  less  transient,  until  Jehu  sat 
upon  the  throne  of  Israel  and  handed  down  his 
sceptre  to  his  descendants  of  the  fourth  generation, 
who,  in  the  person  of  Zachariah,*  were  finally  dis- 
placed, while  the  monarchy  itself  not  long  after 
came  to  an  end.  Henceforth  the  dominion  of  the 
two  kingdoms  reverted  to  the  representative  of  the 
house  of  David,  under  whom  they  were  united  in 

1  1  Kings  xi.  34-39.  2  £  Kings  xii.  22-24. 

^    1  Kings  XV.  28,  29,  30.  ^  2  Kings  x.  30  ;   xv.  8-12. 


Lect.  II.  yewish  Histoiy.  79 

the  j^ersoii  of  Hezekiali,  and  so  continued  for  about 
one  hundred  and  thh'ty  years  till  the  time  of  the 
great  captivity  under  Nebuchadnezzar. 

For  the  history  of  the  divided  kingdom  of 
Israel  we  are  entirely  indebted  to  the  books 
of  Kings,  which  may  perhaps  be  suspected  of 
partiality  in  favour  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah ;  but, 
to  whatever  extent  this  is  the  case,  there  are  certain 
features  to  be  observed  which  can  hardly  have  been 
misrepresented  from  any  such  bias.  For  example, 
we  find  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  the  development  of 
a  grander  idea  of  the  prophetic  office  than  is  ever 
found  in  Judah,  and  one  which,  in  some  respects,  is 
altogether  original.  The  prophets  Elijah  and  The  pro- 
Elisha  are  unique  conceptions  in  the  history,  and  HHjah  and 

1      .  .  f      ^      •  n^  •  •  T  Elisha. 

their  execution  01  their  omce  is  unique.  It  was, 
however,  almost  exclusively  discharged  in  Israel. 
There  is  something  very  remarkable  in  the  apostate 
kingdom  being  thus  highly  favoured  ;  and  the  fact 
that  the  prophets'  mission,  though  it  was  resisted,  was 
nevertheless  acknowledged  by  the  kings  of  Israel, 
may  surely  be  added  to  the  mass  of  the  evidence 
which  tends  to  show  that  their  mission  was  a  reality. 
The  way,  however,  in  which  dynasty  after 
dynasty  is  set  up  in  Israel,  and  removed  for 
rebellion  and  idolatry,  not  without  prophetic 
menaces  and  warninofs,  is  also  in  its  degree  a  con- 
firmation  of  the  authority  on  which  the  promise  to 
David  rested;  because  our  knowledge  of  both  is 


8o  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

derived  from  the  same  source,  and  as  the  one  could 
not  have  been  invented  to  make  the  other  more 
credible,  wdiatever  illustration  either  receives  from 
the  other  is  of  real  and  independent  value/  For 
example,  the  constant  change  of  dynasty  in  Israel 
correspouds  in  fact  with  the  prophetic  announce- 
ment of  it.  We  cannot  suppose  that  the  fact  was 
arranged  to  suit  the  announcement,  and  scarcely 
less  can  we  imagine  that  the  announcement  was 
recorded  to  embellish  the  fact ;  and  yet,  if  not  so,  the 
agreement  of  the  one  with  the  other  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  significant,  and  shows  that  the  power 
which  was  at  work  in  Judah  was  not  unknown  in 
Israel,  and  because  not  unknown  in  Israel,  an 
idolatrous  and  rival  kingdom,  is  the  less  likely  to 
have  been  unreal  in  Judah.  At  all  events.  He  who 
set  up  and  put  down  kings  in  Israel,  was  He  who 
declared  that  He  had  chosen  the  seed  of  David  and 
would  establish  his  throne  for  ever.  In  fact,  the 
more  we  examine  the  history  in  detail,  the  more  we 
see  that  it  must  be  torn  piecemeal  and  totally  re- 
constructed before  it  can  be  reduced  to  the  scale  of 
ordinary  history,  and  that,  in  short,  it  cannot  be  so 
reduced  without  destroying  altogether  its  historical 
credibility — its  value  as  a  record. 
Change  in         j|^  \^    morcovcr,   bv  uo  mcaus  unimportant  to 

the  history.  ^  '        j  i 

observe,  that  after  a  certain  period  the  history  itself 

^   1    Kings   xi.    31    &ui.  ;   xiv.  7  sery.  ;   xvi.   1-13  ;    xx.   A^,   43. 
2  Kings  i.  16,  etc.  etc. 


Lect,  II.  yewish  History 


ceases  to  present  the  same  features  that  it  formerly 
possessed.  There  is  not  the  same  conspicuous  cor- 
respondence between  prophetic  announcement  and 
historic  incident.  There  are  indications,  not  a  few, 
that  the  nation  was  conscious  that  its  prophetic  glory 
had  departed.^  No  attempt  even  is  made  to  repro- 
duce the  remarkable  phenomena  of  the  Books  of 
Kings  and  Chronicles.  Just  as  the  period  of  the 
judges  was  an  era  when  the  prophetic  impulse 
was  wholly  in  abeyance,  though  the  ruling  power 
was  developing  itself ;  so  in  the  time  of  the  mon- 
archy, the  king  and  the  prophet  are  found  side 
by  side  in  full  activity ;  but  after  the  close  of  it  the 
office  of  the  king  is  seen  no  more,  and  that  of  the 
prophet  before  long  comes  to  an  end.  All  this 
tends  to  show  that  the  period  of  the  prophetic 
development  was  distinct  and  exceptional  in  the  life 
of  the  nation.  It  was  a  reality,  and  a  reality  that 
is  virtually  without  parallel  elsewhere.  Still  the 
records  of  the  nation  leave  this  feeling  on  the  reader's 
mind,  that  high  anticipations,  both  as  regards  kingly 
and  prophetic  power,  have  been  raised  and  yet  not 
wholly  fulfilled.  The  book  of  Malachi  closes  not 
only  without  any  manifestation  of  the  prophet  like 
unto  Moses,  but  with  a  promise  only  held  out  of 
the  return  of  Elijah,  whose  position  and  character, 

1  Cf.  Ps.  Ixxiv.  9,  whenever  this  was   written,     Ezra   ii.   63. 
Neh.  vii.  65.     1  Mace.  iv.  46  ;  ix.  27  ;  xiv.  41. 
G 


The  CJirist  of  Lect.  ii. 


though  very  great,  were  at  once  unlike  and  inferior 
to  those  of  Moses, 
itsappa-  And  what  is  true  of  the  prophet  is  yet  more 

fulfilment,  true  of  the  king.  The  distinct  assurances  held 
out  of  a  ruler  on  David's  throne  were  so  far  from 
being  fulfilled  that  their  very  failure  is  an  evidence 
of  their  reality  and  genuineness.  They  must  have 
been  given  on  the  highest  authority,  because  other- 
wise a  natural  jealousy  for  their  credit  and  their 
apparent  agreement  with  fact  would  have  prompted 
the  desire  to  suppress  or  to  modify  them.  But  in- 
stead of  this  they  remain  with  so  much  of  historical 
inconsistency  as  the  reader  may  be  disposed  to 
assign  to  them,  but  at  the  same  time  with  the  very 
vivid  impression  produced  upon  him  that  there  is 
something  wanted  to  complete  them — something  in 
the  future  for  which  they  still  seem  to  wait. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  nearly  so  much  upon  the 
literal  assertions  of  this  or  that  particular  text  or 
collection  of  texts  that  we  dwell,  as  upon  the  gene- 
ral tenor  of  the  narrative  looked  at  as  a  whole,  and 
upon  the  highly  exceptional  phenomena  of  the  lite- 
rature taken  at  large,  which  cannot  with  any  degree 
of  fairness  be  explained  away,  and  yet  cannot  be 
truly  dealt  with  without  suggesting  the  very  strong 
presumption,  which  accumulated  evidence  renders 
inevitable,  that  other  forces  than  those  merely 
human  were  at  work  in  the  history  of  this  nation, 
and  that  there  are  indications  of  the  unveiling  of  a 


Lect.  II.  yewish  History.  83 

will  which  can  only  be  regarded  as  Divine.  And 
this  conclusion  is  proof  against  everything  but  the 
unwarrantable,  because  unscientific,  d 'priori  assump- 
tion that  such  an  idea  is  to  be  rejected  because  of 
its  inherent  and  absolute  impossibility,  which  must 
simply  depend  upon  the  facts  instead  of  being 
allowed  to  sway  them. 

The  result,  then,  to  which  we  are  brought  by  The  his- 
the  survey  of  Jewish  history  as  a  whole,  is  the  con-  complete 
viction  that  it  is  singularly  incomplete ;  that,  start- 
ing with  the  definite  and  distinct  promise  that  all 
the  families  of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed  in  Abra- 
ham, it  leaves  us  with  no  very  distinct  or  definite 
notion  how  this  has  been  or  is  to  be  accomplished ; 
it  awakens  an  anticipation  which,  to  say  the  least, 
it  barely  satisfies ;  that,  moreover,  this  promise, 
clear  as  it  is  in  terms,  though  dark  in  meaning,  is 
not  more  clear  than  the  promise  subsequently  re- 
corded of  a  great  prophet  who  shall  arise,  and  a 
king  who  shall  rule  on  the  throne  of  David,  and  the 
perpetuity  which  shall  attend  his  throne — neither  of 
which  promises,  however,  is  adequately  realised 
within  the  limits  of  the  history  itself.  The  most 
natural  conclusion,  therefore,  is  that  the  entire  his- 
tory from  first  to  last  is  a  delusion  ;  it  is  not  worthy 
of  our  consideration  or  regard,  for  its  conspicuous 
absurdities  are  its  condemnation.  But  yet,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  feel,  in  spite  of  ourselves,  that  this 
conclusion  is  one  which  we  cannot  adopt.     This  his- 


84  The  Christ  of  Lect.  ii. 

tory,  from  first  to  last,  is  more  remarkable  than  any 
other.  Setting  aside  its  supernatural  features, 
there  is  no  question  that  its  broad  and  general 
character  is  that  of  substantial  accuracy  and  truth  : 
it  is  simple,  concise,  and  graphic  :  it  commands  our 
confidence  from  its  obvious  impartiality.  No  one  can 
say  that  the  character  of  Abraham  or  of  David  is 
dealt  with  more  leniently  than  that  of  Saul  or 
Pharaoh.  It  is  impossible  to  read  this  history  and 
pronounce  it  upon  internal  evidence  unworthy  of  our 
attention  or  undeserving  of  our  belief  But  the 
very  manifest  general  character  of  the  history  in 
ordinary  matters  affords  ground,  at  least  so  far,  for 
a  presumption  in  favour  of  its  credibility  in  others 
which  are  not  ordinary.  We  are  forbidden  to  dis- 
miss the  supernatural  features  all  at  once  as  unwor- 
thy of  credit,  on  account  of  the  general  character  of 
the  narrative  which  they  mark.  We  are  constrained 
either  to  explain  them  or  to  accept  them  unex- 
plained. They  do  not  really  admit  of  any  satisfac- 
torily consistent  natural  explanation,  and  therefore 
we  must  accept  them  as  they  are. 
It  excites         p^^A  this  being  the  case,  the  final  impression 

expecta-  °    ^  ^        ^ 

t;on.  produced  by  the  history  as  a  whole  is  that  the 
promises  contained  in  it,  and  the  hopes  excited 
by  it,  are  in  the  highest  degree  noteworthy.  And 
the  natural  inference  is  that,  so  far  at  any  rate, 
a  substantial  foundation  is  laid  for  any  claims 
which  might  hereafter  be  based  upon  these  pro- 


Lect.  II.  yewish  History.  85 

mises  and  hopes.  It  is  im^jossible  to  deny  that 
there  was  a  primd  facie  apj^earance  of  ground  for 
the  expectation  that  among  the  seed  of  Abraham 
there  should  arise  a  prophet  and  a  king,  in  whom 
the  kingly  and  prophetic  character  should  be  amply 
realised.  And  it  is  altogether  beyond  the  limits  of 
possibility  that  the  expectation  of  a  prophet  or  a 
king,  in  the  form  in  which  it  appears,  should  have 
been  modified  in  such  a  way  as  to  become  the 
groundwork  of  the  claims  which  were  afterwards 
based  upon  it.  Put  the  composition  of  the  several 
books,  or  of  particular  parts  of  them,  as  late  as  you 
please,  and  their  real  significance  is  in  no  degree 
afi"ected  thereby.  In  their  present  form  they  were 
long  anterior  to  the  first  preaching  of  the  Baptist, 
and  yet  in  that  form  they  supplied  a  strange  and 
fitting,  and  yet  altogether  improbable  and  impossible, 
basis  for  the  announcement,  There  cometh  one 
mightier  than  I  after  me,  the  latchet  of  whose  shoes 
lam  not  luorthy  to  stoop  doivn  and  unloose}  It  was 
the  spontaneous  development  of  events,  and  in  no 
sense  the  will  of  man,  which  brought  about  this 
adaptation.  The  character  of  John  the  Baptist  is 
one  of  the  greatest  in  Scripture,  but  he  proclaimed 
the  advent  of  one  greater  than  himself.  If  that 
greater  one  should  be  a  prophet  or  a  king,  the  old 
promises  about  the  king  and  the  prophet  would,  to  say 
the  least,  have  a  wonderful  light  thrown  upon  them. 

1   St.  Mark  i.  7. 


86  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

Tliey  would  at  ouce  acquire  a  significance  tliey 
never  possessed  before,  and  yet  the  capability  of 
this  significance  had  been  there  for  ages.  It  was 
not  created  by  John.  And  whether  or  not  John's 
announcement  was  verified,  the  ground  upon  which 
it  was  made  was  valid,  for  Moses  had  spoken  of  a 
prophet  like  unto  himself,  and  Samuel  had  anointed 
David  in  the  room  of  Saul  to  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
Israel,  and  Nathan  had  declared  that  his  house  and 
kingdom  should  be  established  for  ever.  AVhether 
or  not  these  promises  were  destined  to  ultimate 
failure  or  fulfilment,  it  is  undeniable  that  there  they 
were,  and  there  for  ages  they  had  existed. 
The  priest.  There  is  yet  one  other  feature  in  which  the  his- 
tory of  Israel  presents  a  strong  contrast  to  that  of 
all  other  nations.  It  was  expressly  declared  in  the 
law  that  Israel  should  be  a  kingdom  of  priests 
and  a  holy  nation ;  ^  and  in  no  respect  are  this 
people  more  strongly  marked  than  in  their  priestly 
and  sacrificial  character.  The  directions  of  the 
Mosaic  ritual  are  minute  and  elaborate.  From  the 
commencement  to  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament, 
sacrifice  holds  a  conspicuous  and  prominent  place. 
Aaron  and  his  sons,  under  the  legal  system,  are 
expressly  set  apart  to  minister  in  the  priest's 
ofiice.  The  covenant  of  an  everlasting  priesthood  is 
made  with  Phinehas,  the  grandson  of  Aaron.  And 
yet  in  the  time  of  Samuel  we  find  that  the  priest- 

1   Exo.l.  xix.  6. 


lect.  II.  Jewish  History.  87 

hood  has  passed  out  of  the  line  of  Eleazar  into  that 
of  Ithamar  without  any  discoverable  reason.^  In 
the  time  of  David  it  is  found  distributed  in  both 
lines  (1  Chron.  xxiv.  3).  At  the  time  of  tlie  cap- 
tivity, and  after  the  return,  it  is  still  in  the  line  of 
Eleazar,  and  appears  to  have  continued  so.  During 
the  historical  times,  or  at  least  during  the  period  of 
the  monarchy,  the  high -priest's  office  was,  compara- 
tively speaking,  subordinate.  After  the  captivity 
and  later  he  became  the  recognised  head  of  the 
nation,  as  in  a  kingdom  of  priests  he  would  always 
have  a  tendency  to  become ;  and  yet  from  first  to 
last  there  is  no  one  priest  who  stands  out  very  pro- 
minently as  the  model  and  pattern  of  priesthood, 
while  the  entire  sacrificial  system  must  have  come 
to  an  end  with  the  destruction  of  the  Jewish  polity. 

Had  all  this  elaborate  scheme  of  rites  and  cere-  Meaninr 
monies,  of  priests  and  sacrifices,  existed  for  no  pur-  ritual ; 
pose  whatever,  or  was  there  a  further  meaning  in 
its  very  existence  ?  because  there  is  no  part  of  the 
Jewish  constitution  which  can  lay  anything  like  the 
claim  to  Divine  ordinance  and  prescription  that  the 
furniture  and  services  of  the  tabernacle  and  the 
functions  of  the  priesthood  can  lay.  These  were  all 
ostensibly  the  subject  of  express  Divine  injunctions, 

^  This  alone  is  surely  an  indication  that  the  promise  to  Phinehas 
must  have  been  either  contemporaneous  with  him  or  subsequent  to 
the  captivity  ;  but  the  former  is  more  probable  because  of  the  mani- 
fest violation  of  tlie  promise  in  the  time  of  Samuel. 


and  of  its 
cessation. 


88  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

and  if  the  injunctions  were  in  any  sense  Divine  tliey 
shed  a  liglit  upon  the  whole  theory  of  sacrifice  as  it 
existed  also  in  other  nations  ;  but  if  they  were  not — if 
there  was  no  positive  and  external  authority  for  them, 
if  they  were  based  upon  imposture  and  self-deception 
— then  they  not  only  become  inexplicable  in  them- 
selves, l)ut  the  prevalence  and  universality  of  sacri- 
fice in  the  world  at  large,  as  well  as  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  theory  of  sacrifice,  is  a  phenomenon  that 
we  cannot  account  for.  The  origin  of  the  institution 
of  sacrifice  is  indeed  lost  in  obscurity,  but  a  certain 
amount  of  light  is  thrown  upon  its  existence  if  in 
any  case  it  was  sanctioned  or  adopted  by  Divine 
authority  and  precept — a  light  which  otherwise  fails 
us  altogether.  And  certainly,  if  such  a  sanction  is 
anywhere  to  be  discovered,  we  must  look  for  it  in  the 
extant  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  ;  but  even  if  we 
acknowledge  its  existence  here,  these  writings  them- 
selves fail  to  give  us  not  only  the  full  meaning  of 
the  idea,  but  also  the  complete  development  and 
realisation  of  the  idea  in  history.  There  may  never 
have  been  any  such  realisation  at  all ;  but  if  there  was 
the  only  person  in  whom  Ave  can  hope  to  find  it  is 
Christ. 

In  other  words,  the  sacerdotal  and  sacrificial 
system  of  the  Jews,  as  it  is  expressed  in  their 
extant  sacred  writings,  no  matter  when  they  were 
written,  taken  in  its  relation  to  the  corresponding 
systems  of  other  nations,   necessarily  and  naturally 


lect.  II.  Jewish  History. 


leads  us  to  expect  some  solution  of  it  whicli  shall 
satisfactorily  account  for  its  existence;  but  it  is 
impossible  to  give  any  such  account  by  searching 
the  records  of  history  in  any  nation  Avhatever. 
Unless  the  very  idea  of  sacrifice  from  first  to  last 
was  a  mistake,  unless  its  essential  principle  was 
a  false  one,  it  seems  to  point  us  not  only  to  a  great 
moral  truth,  but  also  to  a  definite  historic  exhi- 
bition and  illustration  of  the  truth,  or  at  least  to  a 
turning  point  in  history,  when  the  human  mind, 
which  before  had  universally  acquiesced  in  sacrifice, 
should  at  once  and  universally  repudiate  the  repe- 
tition of  the  outward  form,  and  rest  content  with 
the  realisation  of  the  inward  truth  expressed  by 
it.  Such  a  turning  point  would  really  present  the 
greatest  instance  of  moral  and  mental  revolution 
which  it  is  possible  to  conceive.  And  such  a 
turning  point  was  in  fact  presented  by  the  effects 
and  consequences  of  the  death  of  Christ.  The 
repudiation  of  animal  sacrifice  was  the  immediate 
result  of  the  preaching  of  that  death.  Nothing- 
else  has  ever  operated  in  the  same  way.  Nothing- 
else  can  in  this  respect  come  into  competition  for 
one  moment  with  Christ's  death.  The  publication 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  no  matter  who  wrote 
it,  was  the  evidence  and  the  consequence  of  the 
mightiest  revolution  which  the  human  mind  can 
undergo  or  has  ever  undergone.  Whether  or  not 
Jewish    sacrifice    led   up   to    the   Epistle   to    the 


90  The  Christ  of  lect.  ii. 

Hebrews,  and  was  intended,  to  prepare  for  its 
central  fact,  certain  it  is  that  the  central  fact  of 
that  Ej^istle  was  the  abolition  of  Jewish  sacrifice, 
and  gave  the  signal  for  a  total  change  of  mind 
upon  the  subject.  A  revolution  so  mighty  as  the 
rejection  of  the  formal  expression  of  sacrifice,  in 
favour  of  its  moral  signification  and  inward  essence, 
is  not  so  likely  to  have  been  occasioned  by  any- 
thing as  by  an  especially  high  illustration  of  the 
moral  truth  of  sacrifice. 
Result  of  We  may  declare  emphatically  that  no  historic 

of  Christ,  event  was  adequate  to  produce  this  revolution  but 
one,  as  we  may  likewise  affirm  that  there  is  no 
other  event  which  in  this  respect  pretends  to  rival 
it.  There  is  a  direct  relation  of  cause  and  effect 
between  the  death  of  Christ  and  the  discontinuance 
of  sacrifice,  which  is  undeniable,  because  obvious, 
and  which  can  be  ^^aralleled  by  nothing  else  in 
history.  We  may  deny  that  the  existence  of  sacri- 
fice pointed  prophetically  and  with  Divine  autho- 
rity to  the  historic  occurrence  of  the  death  of 
Christ;  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  the  death 
of  Christ  did  not"  exhibit  and  illustrate,  as  nothing 
else  ever  did,  the  full  meaning  and  the  Divine 
wisdom  of  the  law  of  sacrifice. 
Conciii-  And  thus  it  is  that  we  find  the  promise  of  a 
Christ  in  Jewish  history.  We  find  in  that  history 
the  foundation  and  the  germ  of  all  that  was  after- 
wards  claimed   for  Christ   and   adva,nced   in   His 


sion. 


lect.  II.  Jewish  History. 


name.  We  find  there  ages  before  He  came  or  any  The  seed, 
such  claims  were  ever  advanced,  the  distinct  pro- 
mise of  a  seed  in  which  the  nations  should  be 
blessed.  However  we  interpret  that  promise, 
whether  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  or  of  a  certain 
individual  of  his  family,  whether  we  regard  him 
or  his  family,  or  a  certain  individual  of  his  family, 
as  the  channel  or  as  the  standard  of  blessing,  it  is 
equally  true  when  applied  to  Christ.  He  pro- 
claimed himself,  and  was  proclaimed,  as  the  fountain 
of  life  and  the  one  source  of  blessing  to  mankind. 

We  find  there  the  distinct  promise  of  a  great  The  pro- 
prophet,  who  should  stand  like  Moses  between  God 
and  man.  In  the  whole  cycle  of  history  there  is 
no  name  but  one  on  behalf  of  which  any  such 
claim  can  be  advanced.  Christ  may  not  have  been 
that  great  prophet,  but  at  least  there  was  none 
other  greater  than  He ;  and  in  that  case  the  pro- 
mise which  has  existed  for  three  thousand  years, 
and  is  still  a  promise,  has  signally  failed,  aud  though 
history  has  revealed  and  confirmed  its  truth,  it  must 
be  pronounced  a  lie. 

But  we  find  there  also  the  distinct  promise  of  The  king, 
a  king  whose  throne  is  to  be  established  for  ever ; 
and  yet  before  many  centuries  the  kingdom  of 
David  is  overthrown,  and  in  the  time  of  Herod 
and  Pontius  Pilate  we  hear  the  people  of  David 
crying  aloud,  We  liave,  no  hing  hut  Ccesa?- ;  ^  while 

^  St.  John  xix.  15. 


92  The  Christ  of  Jewish  History.       lect.  ii. 

one  wlio  claimed  descent  from  the  son  of  Jesse 
was  led  away  to  be  crucified,  and  tlie  superscription 
was  written  over  Him,  containing  the  indictment 
upon  which  He  suffered,  This  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
the  King  of  the  Jews ;  ^  and  before  He  was  born, 
we  are  told  that  it  had  been  said, — The  Lord  God 
shall  give  unto  him  the  throne  of  his  father  David; 
and  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  Jaeob  for  ever, 
and  of  his  kingdom  there  shall  he  no  end? 
The  priest.  And,  lastly,  we  find  there  from  beginning  to  end 
the  deep  impress  of  a  sacrificial  system,  which  must 
have  been  unmeaning  and  self-imposed,  and  is  con- 
sequently an  unexplained  phenomenon  in  history, 
if  it  did  not  lead  upward  and  point  onward  to  the 
perfect  priesthood  and  sacrifice  of  one  who  should 
be  called  not  after  the  order  of  Aaron,  hut  after  the 
'power  of  an  endless  life? 

^  St.  John  xix.  19.     St,  Matt,  xxvii,  37. 
^  St.  Luke  i.  32,  33.  3  ^^}^^  yii_  y\,  16, 


LECTURE    III 


THE    CHRIST   OF   THE    PSALMS. 


What  is  there  necessary  for  man  to  know  whicli  tlie  Psalms  are  not 
able  to  teach  ?  They  are  to  beginners  an  easy  and  familiar  intro- 
duction, a  mighty  augmentation  of  all  virtue  and  knowledge  in  such 
as  are  entered  before,  a  strong  confirmation  to  the  most  perfect  among 
others.  Heroical  magnanimity,  exquisite  justice,  grave  moderation, 
exact  wisdom,  repentance  unfeigned,  unwearied  patience,  the  mys- 
teries of  God,  the  sufferings  of  Christ,  the  terrors  of  wrath,  the  com- 
forts of  grace,  the  works  of  Providence  over  this  world,  and  the 
promised  joys  of  that  world  which  is  to  come,  all  good  necessarily 
to  be  either  known,  or  done,  or  had,  this  one  celestial  fountain 
yieldeth. — Hooker, 


LECTURE    III. 

As  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day 
have  I  begotten  thee.  .  .  .  Wherefore  he  saith  also  in  another 
Psalm,  Thou  shalt  not  suffer  thine  Holy  One  to  see  corru2)tion. — 
Acts  xiii.  33,  35. 

We  have  no  reasonable  cause  to  doubt  that  St.  Paul  The 

evidence 

in  Ills  speech  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia  made  reference  from  the 

T  Psalms. 

to  these  two  Psalms,  and  applied  them  to  Jesus 
Christ.  But  whether  or  not  he  did,  it  is  at  least 
certain  that  the  writer  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
believed  in  the  fitness  of  such  an  application,  and 
desired  his  readers  also  to  believe  in  it.  If  proof, 
therefore,  were  wanting,  we  have  it  here,  as  we 
have  it  abundantly  elsewhere,  that  the  early  Church 
was  accustomed  to  find  in  the  Psalms  of  David 
much  that  it  understood  to  be  spoken  prophetically 
of  Jesus  Christ. 

But  my  object  now  is  not  to  defend  or  estab- 
lish the  truth  of  any  such  interpretation,  but  rather 
to  trace  in  the  Psalms  the  growth  and  development 
of  those  ideas  which  subsequently  contributed  as  a 
matter  of  fact  to  supply  the  basis  for  the  Messianic 
conception. 

We    have    seen   already   that    the   pattern   or 


96  The  CJu'ist  of  lect.  hi. 

scheme  upon  which  the  known  history  of  the 
Jewish  nation  developed  itself  was  one  which  was 
eminently  adapted  to  sustain,  if  it  did  not  originate, 
the  after-growth  of  the  national  expectation,  that  an 
illustrious  Person  would  arise.  Kingly,  priestly, 
national,  and  human,  that  Person  was  to  be,  and 
blessing  was  to  be  associated  with  his  name  and 
office — so  much,  at  least,  the  people  might  have 
been  justified  in  expecting  from  the  records  of  their 
history.  Let  us  inquire  now  what  evidence  the 
Psalms  afford  of  the  early  rise  of  such  an  expecta- 
tion, and  how  fiir  they  contributed  to  its  growth. 
Their  ciia-  I*  is  uot  improbable  that  in  the  matter  of  date 
racter.  flicre  are  productions  in  the  book  of  Psalms  which 
range  over  a  period  of  a  thousand  years.  There 
are  some,  perhaps,  as  early  as  the  Exodus,  and 
there  are  others  as  late  as  the  return  from  cap- 
tivity. We  do  not  dwell,  however,  so  much  upon 
the  antiquity  of  particular  Psalms,  or  of  the  evi- 
dence they  may  contain,  as  upon  the  testimony 
supplied  by  this  branch  of  the  national  literature, 
which  may  be  called  its  poetry  or  hymnology. 
Taking  the  Psalms,  as  represented  at  least  by  the 
works  of  David,  they  may  be  placed  as  a  whole 
anterior  to  prophecy  as  a  whole,  and  consequently 
may  be  examined  first.  They  stand,  moreover,  in 
the  position  of  national  songs  or  odes,  and  there- 
fore have  less  of  that  which  characterises  the  works 
of  an  individual  author  than  the  writings  of  the 


rhteous 


Lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  97 

several  prophets.  They  may  be  taken,  more  or 
less,  as  fairly  representing  the  spontaneous  ex- 
pression of  national  sentiment.  What,  then,  is 
their  evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  this  senti- 
ment ? 

The   Psalms   open  with   the  description   of   an  The  por- 
ideally  righteous  man ;   a  description  which  is  re-  righi 
peated  in  the  15th  and  24th  Psalms,  becomes  the 
expression  of  a  strong  personal  resolve  in  the  101st, 
and  is  expanded  and  enlarged  upon  in  the  112th 
Psalm.     Two   of  these  Psalms,  the  first  and  last, 
have  no  inscription ;    the    others    are   ascribed   to 
^   David.     But  it  matters  not  who  wrote  them  :  they 
are  a  witness  to  a  certain  lono;inof  after  an  ideal 
standard  of  humanity,  of  which  tlie  natural  tend- 
ency  would  be  to   reproduce  itself  in  the  minds 
of  the   people.     The  fact   that   they  are   couched 
in   merely  general   language,   and    applied   to  the 
righteous  generally,  is  no  proof  that  they  had  not 
their  share  in  tending  to  produce  and  deepen  the 
impression  that  the  great  want  of  humanity  was 
a  righteous  man,  and  that  the  mission  of  Israel 
would  be  unfulfilled  till  the  ideal  of  righteousness 
had  been  produced.     In  proportion,   therefore,   as 
the  people  could  grasp  the  promise  of  blessing  for 
the  nations  in  the  seed  of  Abraham,  they  would 
learn  from  the  teaching  of  these  and  similar  Psalms 
that  any  one  who   claimed  to  fulfil  that  promise 
must  himself  be  righteous  to  the  utmost  limit  of 

H 


98  The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 

their  staudard,   of   which   David  himself  had  hut 
too  conspicuously  fallen  short. 

True,  however,  as  this  may  be,  the  notion  is  too 
vague  to  be  construed  into  any  evidence  of  what 
was  actually  understood.     Nor  is  it  so  advanced. 
We  can  only  perceive  here  an  indication  of  the 
kind  of  soil  in  which  the  foundation  was  laid  for 
that   superstructure   which    was   afterwards   to   be 
reared,    and   we    can    determine    how   far   it    was 
favourable  or  otherwise — how  far  the  foundation 
itself  was  solid   and   substantial,   or  insecure  and 
sandy. 
The  gene-         It  may  be  well,  how^ever,   to  notice  the  more 
teristics      general  characteristics  of  the   Psalms  first,  before 
Psalms,      passing  on  to  those  which  are  special  and  personal. 
"We   cannot   proceed  far  w^ithout  discovering  that 
the  Psalms  are  the  expression  of  real  and  continual 
trouble.     The  writer  is  constantly  exposed  to  per- 
secution.     The    wicked    are    ever   oppressing   and 
deriding  him,  and  not  seldom  this  appears  to  be 
on  account  of  his  integrity.      Thai)  also  that  render 
evil  for   good   arc    mine    adversaries ;    because   I 
follow  the  thing  that  good  is,^  may  be  taken  as  a 
fair  sample  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Psalms.     The 
writer  appears  to  be  set  in  the  very  midst  of  the 
conflict  between  good  and  evil,  and  to  bear  in  him- 
self the  brunt  of  it.     Not  seldom  this  is  expressed 
in  terms  which  must  have  transcended  not  only  the 

'  Psalm  xxxviii.  20. 


Lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  99 

special  circumstances  in  which  David  was  placed, 
but  those  also  which  we  can  conceive  to  have  been 
literally  true  of  any  one ;  and  yet  they  have  an 
intense  reality.  If  the  expressions  are  hyperbolical, 
we  still  feel  that  they  are  true.  Though  the  lan- 
guage of  the  22d  Psalm  cannot  have  been  war- 
ranted by  the  exigencies  of  David's  case,  it  is  too 
real  and  vivid  not  to  be  true ;  and  in  whatever 
sense  it  was  true,  there  must  have  been  in  the 
mind  of  the  writer  a  felt  reality  answering  to  its 
truth.  What  this  was  we  may  perhaps  find  it 
difficult  to  determine  ;  but  the  language  is  its  own 
witness,  and  there  is  only  one  vision,  ideal  or 
actual,  in  all  history  which  can  claim  to  have 
fulfilled  it.  We  may  certainly  affirm  of  the  Psalms 
that  they  first  gave  expression  to  this  element  of 
ideal  sufi"ering,  and  added  it  to  those,  whatever  they 
were,  which  w^ere  already  in  existence. 

Not  more  conspicuous,  however,  than  the  daring 
character  of  the  language  used,  and  its  literal  in- 
applicability to  the  writer's  circumstances,  is  the 
manner  in  which  the  suff'ering  is  depicted  as  the 
writer's  own.  He  everywhere  identifies  himself 
with  the  person  suffering.  So  that  the  two  oppo- 
site statements  may  be  maintained  with  equal  truth, 
because  the  maintenance  of  both  will  alone  express 
the  whole  truth,  that  no  writer  whoever  he  was 
can  have  spoken  of  that  which  was  literally  verified 
in  himself,  and  yet  that  each  several  writer,  if  there 


1  oo  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  III. 


were  more  than  one,  was  by  sympathetic  appre- 
ciation a  partaker  of  the  sufferings  he  so  vividly 
described. 

It  was  the  office,  then,  of  that  portion  of  Jewish 
literature  known  as  the  Psalms  to  bring  out  in 
humanity  and  to  give  expression  to,  the  conception 
of  righteous  manhood,  the  experience  of  integrity 
borne  down  by  oppression,  the  being  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  the  notion  of  being  made  perfect 
through  suffering,  as  well  as  the  picture  of  an  ideal 
degree  of  suffering,  and  consequently  of  an  ideal 
sufferer,  which  men  must  have  learnt  to  feel,  the 
more  they  pondered  it,  could  only  wait  for  its  com- 
plete fulfilment,  if  it  was  to  be  fulfilled.  And  inas- 
much as  the  expression  of  this  from  first  to  last  was 
everywhere  cast  in  the  form  of  personal  experience,  it 
became  more  and  more  impossible  that  the  various 
characteristics  should  not  group  themselves  round  a 
person,  and  combine  to  form  a  whole,  which,  as  it 
grew  by  constant  but  gradual  accretion,  was  found  to 
be  not  altogether  in  the  likeness  of  David,  or  of  any 
other  historic  character  to  whom  it  might  be  referred. 
The  Divine        Auotlicr   prominent   feature  which  is   seen   to 

election,  t  •  i  -r>      i  i 

and  trust    charactcrisc  the  Jrsalms  to  even  a  greater   degree 


God. 


than  any  other  portion  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  the 
consciousness  of  divine  election,  and  of  consequent 
trust  in  God,  which  they  express.  This  is  every- 
where not  the  result  of  personal  devotion  to  the 
Most  High,  but  of  the  going  forth  of  special  regard 


The  Psalms.  loi 


on   the  part  of   God  towards  liim  who  has  been 
assured  of  it.     There  is  nothing  more  conspicuous 
than  this  in  the  Psalms  as  a  whole.     So  deep  and 
abiding  is  this  consciousness,  that  the  sense  even  of 
intense  personal  guilt  cannot  shake  it.     The  usurp- 
ing presence  of  sin  has  only  the  effect  of  making  the 
Psalmist  cleave  with  the  greater  earnestness  to  God. 
He  feels  that  the  honour  of  God  will  be  compromised 
if  one  who  has  trusted  Him  so  unreservedly  is  left  to 
perish.   And  so,  with  entire  abandonment  of  soul,  he 
throws  himself  upon  the  Lord.     Preserve,  thou  my 
soul,  for  I  am  holy  :  my  God,  save  thy  servant  that 
putteth    his   trust   in    thee}     He   never   has   any 
doubt  that  his  cause  is  the  cause  of  God.     The 
Lord  is  on  my  side;  I  will  not  fear:  ivhat  can  man 
do  unto  me  f  ^     At  the  same  time  he  feels  that  this 
exceptional  nearness  to  the  Divine  presence  has  laid 
him  under  an  obligation  to  exceptional  righteous- 
ness ;  and  it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  this  two- 
fold consciousness  of  the  Divine  election,  and  of  the 
consequent  obligation  to  personal  righteousness,  is 
the  unique  characteristic  of  this  ancient  literature, 
and  pre-eminently  of  the  Psalms.    We  have  nowhere, 
as  we  have  here,  the  picture  of  a  man  bowed  down 
with  affliction  and  sorrow  of  every  kind,  yet  not 
losing  his  confidence  in  God,  nor  his  conviction  of 
God's   righteousness ;    not  charging  God  with  in- 
justice on  account  of  what  He  has  laid  upon  him, 

^  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  2.  ^  Psalm  cxviii.  6. 


102  The  Chi'ist  of  lect.  hi. 

but  clinging  to  the  righteousness  of  God,  not  only 
as  the  ground  of  his  own  hope  for  brighter  times, 
but  as  the  means  of  raising  him  out  of  that  personal 
sin  which  he  feels  to  be  so  near  to  him.  Verily, 
this  portraiture  is  in  itself  Divine. 

It  is  obvious,  then,  that  the  union  of  these  several 
elements  in  the  Psalms,  and  their  combination  in  one 
and  the  same  person — because  if  the  writers  were 
various  their  experience  was  uniform — shows  that  the 
election  of  God  secures  no  immunity  from  suffering, 
that  the  righteous  man  is  often  exposed  to  the 
greatest  trials,  and  that  trial  and  suffering  are 
designed  to  elicit  faith  in  God,  and  give  no  occasion 
in  themselves  to  distrust  His  goodness.  All  this 
was  a  distinct  advance  in  the  knowledge  of  God's 
dealings,  and  was  itself  a  preparation  for  the  advent 
of  One  who  should  be  made  perfect  through  suffer- 
ing, and  should  prove  Himself  the  righteous  man  by 
the  ignominy  of  unmerited  death  He  was  content 
to  endure. 
National  Not  Icss  remarkable  than  the  sense  of  personal 

election  expressed  in  so  many  of  the  Psalms  is  the 
conviction  of  national  election  which  continually 
pervades  them.  This  is  but  another  form  of  the 
ancient  belief  expressed  in  the  promise  to  Abraham  : 
In  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  he  blessed. 
The  ultimate  confession  of  the  Psalmist  is.  He  hath 
not    dealt    so   with  any  nation ;  ^    but   it   is   one 

^  Psalm  cxlvii.  20. 


elecUon. 


Lect.  III.  The  Psalms. 


103 


which  has  frequently  been  anticipated  in  various 
ways.  And  yet,  in  spite  of  the  intense  patriotism 
and  strong  national  sentiment  that  characterises  the 
Psalms,  there  are  no  compositions  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment so  universal  in  their  scope,  so  world-wide  in 
their  human  sympathy,  or  that  express  so  deep  a 
conviction  of  the  future  that  is  reserved  for  Israel. 
The  assertion  is  distinct  and  emphatic  that  the  God 
of  Jacob  is  the  God  of  the  universe,  and  the  ultimate 
triumph  of  His  cause  is  certain.  All  nations  ivhom 
thou  hast  made  shall  come  and  worship  before 
thee,  0  Lord,  and  shall  glorify  thy  name ;  for  tJiou 
art  great  and  doest  ivondrous  things  :  thou  art  God 
alone}  To  say  the  least,  it  is  very  remarkable  that 
at  a  time  so  early  a  nation  so  obscure  should  have 
been  so  confident  of  the  relation  in  Avhich  it  stood 
to  God,  and  have  seen  so  clearly  that  the  faith  with 
which  it  was  intrusted  was  destined  to  become  the 
faith  of  the  whole  world,  even  as  it  is  now  recog- 
nised by  the  most  civilised  portions  of  mankind.  If 
it  were  possible  for  such  convictions  to  be  justified 
by  any  result,  one  might  plead  that  the  known  ver- 
dict of  history  had  certainly  justified  these. 

But  then  it  is  also  manifest  that  the  election  of 
God,  which  is  felt  to  be  the  distinguishing  glory  of 
the  nation,  is  not,  so  to  say,  distributed  equally  over 
the  entire  mass,  but  is  gathered  up  and  concentrated  in 
a  single  line  and  even  in  a  single  person.    Whatever 

^  Psalm  Ixxxvi.  9,  10. 


I04  The  Christ  of  Lect.  iii. 

Election  of  Ijc  tlic  origiii  of  sucli  Psaliiis  as  tlie  78tli,  the  89tli, 

a  particular 

line.  and   tlic    132d,  tliere    can  be  no  question    of  the 

prominence  they  assign  to  David ;  and  none  of  them, 
be  it  observed,  is  ascribed  to  him ;  indeed,  it  is  not 
improbable  that  they  are  all  later  than  his  time.  So 
far,  therefore,  they  may  be  taken  as  expressing  the 
popular  opinion  regarding  him,  and  the  future  in 
store  for  his  line.  And  yet  it  appears  in  the  tAvo  last 
of  these  Psalms  that  the  hope  is  clung  to  with  the 
greater  tenacity,  because  the  prospect  of  its  fulfilment 
seems  to  have  failed.  For  this  reason,  therefore,  we 
cannot  doubt  the  reality  of  the  original  hope,  nor 
of  the  ground  on  which  it  was  supposed  to  rest. 
Nor  is  there  any  counter-evidence  deducible  from 
other  Psalms  which  might  lead  us  to  question  this. 
God's  election  of  Israel,  then,  is  clearly  seen  to  be 
summed  up  in  David  and  his  house.  On  the  evi- 
dence of  the  Psalms,  there  can  be  no  question  that 
he  is  the  inheritor  of  whatever  promises  were  made 
to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob.  If  Israel  as  a 
nation  inherited  the  promises  made  unto  the  fathers, 
then  David,  as  the  representative  of  the  line  of 
Judah,  contained  in  himself  whatever  belonged  to 
his  nation.  He  and  his  family,  at  the  time  when 
these  Psalms  were  written,  were  regarded  as  the 
most  prominent  possessors  of  whatever  had  been 
promised  to  the  first  fathers  of  the  nation,  or  was 
believed  to  have  been  promised  to  them. 

And  it  is  further  evident  as  a  matter  of  fact  that 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  105 

the  belief  in  tlie  promise  to  the  fathers  must  have 
preceded  the  belief  in  any  promise  to  David  ;  be- 
cause, otherwise,  the  effect  of  the  promise  to  him 
would  have  been  weakened  by  the  subsequent  in- 
vention of  any  wider  promise  which  should  ec[ually 
include  the  entire  mass  of  the  nation. 

"VVe  see,  therefore,  on  the  unquestionable  evidence 
of  the  Psalms,  that  at  or  after  the  time  of  David,  for 
it  matters  not,  there  was  understood  to  be  a  repeti- 
tion of  Divine  promises  to  him  and  his  seed — a 
narrowing  in  of  the  channel  of  blessing  originally 
promised  to  the  nation  at  large,  a  concentration  and 
limitation  of  it  in  his  particular  line. 

A¥e  may  say,  indeed,  that  the  two  promises  are  These  fea- 

J         'I  '  ^  ^  tures  inde- 

not  identical,  that  they  are  distinct  and  independ-  pendent  of 
ent :  that  may  or  may  not  15e  so  :  the  one  is  general 
the  other  is  special ;  and  we  have  to  account  as  a 
literary  phenomenon  for  their  existence  in  the  Jew- 
ish literature,  and  for  their  existence  in  this  parti- 
cular form ;  and  we  cannot  deny  that  at  no  period, 
say  between  the  captivity  and  the  era  of  the  Mac- 
cabees, would  it  have  been  possible  to  create  the 
record  of  these  two  promises  and  the  independent 
evidence  which  exists,  so  that  their  occurrence  and 
their  peculiar  features  should  be  less  significant  than 
they  are  at  present. 

That  is  to  say,  up  to  the  period  of  the  Mac- 
cabees, and  we  need  not  go  later,  no  man  could  have 
foreseen  that  such  a  combination  of  literary  pheno- 


1 06  The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 

mena  as  are  preseDted  in  the  historical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  and  the  Psalms  would  have  been 
capable  of  sujDplying  the  groundwork  for  that  broad 
and  general  interpretation  of  them  to  which  any 
acceptance  of  the  facts  of  Christianity,  or  of  the 
ordinary  doctrines  of  the  Christian  Church,  must  of 
necessity  shut  us  up.  So  far  then,  and  no  farther, 
as  these  phenomena  lend  themselves  to  the  inter- 
pretation which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
and  the  Christian  Church  generally  have  passed  upon 
them,  it  cannot  be  the  result  of  human  foresight  or 
design,  but  must  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  simple 
accident  if  its  Divine  significance  is  rejected.  We 
maintain,  however,  that  the  way  in  which  these 
various  phenomena  gradually  prepared  themselves, 
if  we  may  so  say,  for  the  reception  of  the  burden 
which  was  afterwards  to  be  laid  upon  them,  is  far 
too  significant  to  be  reputed  as  the  work  of  chance, 
and  supplies,  indeed,  the  strongest  possible  moral 
evidence  of  design. 

If,  however,  we  can  see  in  the  Psalms,  as  a 
whole,  a  wonderful  anticipation  and  assertion  of 
those  particular  spiritual  truths  which  are  commonly 
regarded  as  more  or  less  characteristic  of  Christianity; 
and  if,  looked  at  merely  in  this  light,  they  supply  the 
outline  of  that  character  of  combined  suffering  and 
majesty,  the  subject  at  once  of  oppression,  deliver- 
ance, and  triumph,  which  was  afterwards  exhibited 
in  full  by  Christ ;  we  must  not  forget  that  in  many 


Lkct.  III.  The  Psalms.  107 

other  instances  they  furnish  a  yet  higher  evidence  of 
their  purpose  as  hindmarks  along  the  ages  of  a  dis- 
tant past  to  point  us  onwards  to  Him. 

It  is  manifest  that  in  this  way  they  were  originally 
understood  and  appealed  to.  But  then  such  a  use  of 
them  implies  an  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  inten- 
tion which  they  served,  an  intention  which  we  would 
rather  indicate  than  assume.  Certain  it  is  that  the 
special  Messianic  characteristics  of  the  Psalms,  if 
such  there  are,  assume  altogether  a  different  aspect 
if  taken  in  connection  with  other  features  which  are 
patent  and  nndeniable,  from  that  which  they  have 
when  looked  at  by  themselves,  and  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  sustaining  the  entire  weight  of  the 
argument  to  be  based  upon  them. 

The  very  fact,  then,  that  certain  Psalms  have  The  Mes- 

sitinic 

been  termed  Messianic,  while  many  others  have  Psaims. 
never  been  so  designated,  is  evidence  in  some  degree 
of  an  essential  difference  between  them.  It  proves, 
at  least,  that  there  are  many  Psalms  on  account  of 
which  no  such  claim  has  or  can  be  advanced ; 
while  the  zeal  with  which  the  special  character  of 
the  others  has  been  attacked  and  defended  may  seem 
to  show  that  there  is  at  any  rate  a  frimd  Jack  ap- 
pearance of  some  marked  difference  in  them.  Is  it 
possible  to  determine  wherein  this  difference  consists? 

The  Psalms  that  have  commonly  been  regarded  J^^J^^f  ""'^ 
as  Messianic  are  some  ten  or  twelve.     The  second 
Psalm  depicts  the  dignity  and  permanence  of  the 


io8  The  Christ  of  lkct.  hi. 

tlirone  of  Zion.  The  person  sitting  upon  that  throne 
declares,  The  Lord  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  art  my 
Son ;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee.  Upon  His  re- 
quest the  heathen  are  promised  Him  for  His  pos- 
session. Kings  are  to  pay  Him  homage,  and  all 
that  trust  in  or  take  refuge  with  Him  are  pronounced 
blessed.  The  writer's  idea  then  clearly  was  that 
Zion  was  to  be  the  centre  of  universal  sovereignty. 
The  person  who  rules  or  is  to  rule  there  is  called  the 
Anointed  or  the  IMessiah  of  the  Lord,  a  term  which 
was  certainly  applied  to  Saul  and  to  David,  but  does 
not  appear  to  have  been  used  in  the  same  way  of 
any  later  king.^  There  is  abundant  evidence,  then,  to 
show  that  David  was  regarded  in  some  special  sense 
as  the  anointed  of  the  Lord  ;  and  in  view  of  this  fact  it 
seems  more  probable  that  the  Psalm  has  primary  re- 
ference to  David  himself  than  to  any  other  monarch. 
But  if  this  be  so  it  is  clear  that  he  speaks  of  himself, 
or  the  writer  speaks  of  him,  as  he  has  nowhere  else 
been  spoken  of  before.  A  new  element,  therefore, 
v\^as  added  by  this  poem  to  the  existing  conception 
of  David's  throne  ;  or,  supposing  the  conception 
existed  before,  it  was  here  for  the  first  time  expressed. 
It  is  quite  obvious,  however,  that  at  no  period  of 
David's  history  was  there  any  prospect  of  such  a 

1  The  only  exception  is  Lam.  iv.  20,  which  probably  refers  to 
the  king  ;  other  kings  are  said  to  have  been  anointed  (1  Kings  i. 
34,  xix.  15  ;  2  Kings  ix.  3,  6,  12,  etc.),  but  are  not  called  the  Lord's 
anointed.     Cyras,  however,  is  so  called,  Isa.  xlv.  1. 


Lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  109 

development  of  liis  kingdom  as  would  fit  in  at  all 
appropriately  with  the  language  used.  Making  the 
fullest  allowance  for  hyperbole,  there  still  seems  to 
be  an  ideal  before  the  writer's  mind,  of  which  the 
real  and  actual  must  have  fallen  short.  And  yet  this 
ideal  was  embodied  for  ever  in  the  form  he  had  given 
to  it,  and  supplied  for  his  own  and  for  all  subsequent 
generations  a  standard  by  which  the  actual  might  be 
measured.  Henceforth  a  glory  was  added  to  the 
throne  of  Zion  which,  if  it  was  never  fulfilled,  and 
in  proportion  as  it  lacked  fulfilment,  would  tend  to 
stimulate  the  hope  that  it  might  be.  We  may  truly 
say  that  a  want  which  had  never  been  felt  before  had 
been  created  by  the  production  of  this  second  Psalm. 

And  as  the  glory  of  the  throne  was  directly  con- 
nected with  the  term  Anointed  of  the  Lord,  which 
the  national  historic  records  do  not  ascribe  to  any 
king  later  than  David,  it  is  probable  that  any  lono-- 
ing  which  existed  for  an  ideal  sovereign  would  be 
associated  likewise  with  the  hope  of  one  who  should 
pre-eminently  bear  that  title.  This,  however,  will 
appear  more  fully  as  we  proceed.^ 

The  eighth  Psalm  has  reference  to  the  Mosaic  The  eigiuh 
narrative  of  the  original  constitution  of  man,  and  is 
quoted  by  our  Lord  in  connection  with  an  incident  in 
His  own  career,  as  well  as  by  St.  Paul  and  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ;^  but  inasmuch  as  it  does  not 

1  See,  for  example,  Lecture  IV. 
-  St.  Matt.  xxi.  16  ;  1  Cor.  xv.  27  ;  Eph.  i.  22  ;  Ileb.  ii.  7. 


Psalm. 


1 1  o  The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 

seem  to  add  greatly  to  the  defiuiteness  of  the  IMessianic 
idea  in  its  earlier  development  we  need  not  dwell  upon 
it  now.  It  seems,  however,  to  associate  God's  high- 
est glory  in  the  heavens  with  the  greater  manifesta- 
tion of  His  glory  in  man  iij)on  the  earth,  and  there- 
fore to  show  that  it  is  only  in  man  and  in  the  natm^e 
of  a  man  that  His  praise  can  be  adequately  set  forth. 
Man  is  thus  the  fullest  recipient  of  God's  glory, 
which  is  true,  whether  it  is  understood  generally  or 
of  the  Incarnation.  We  cannot  affirm  that  David 
intended  to  express  more  than  the  general  truth,  but 
it  becomes  additionally  true  when  referred  to  the 
perfect  Man. 
The  six-  The  next  Psalm  which  requires  to  be  noticed  is 

the  sixteenth.  In  this  the  writer  prays  earnestly 
for  preservation,  and  declares  his  unbounded  and 
unshaken  confidence  in  God.  He  feels  that  the 
reserve  of  wealth  which  he  has  in  God  will  outlast 
the  utmost  trials  of  life,  and  survive  even  the  grave 
itself;  that  in  fact  it  is  only  in  the  immediate  pre- 
sence of  God  that  there  is  \h'i  fulness  of  joy,  and  at 
His  right  hand  pleasures  for  evermore.  This  is 
the  earliest  and  perhaps  the  strongest  expression  in 
the  Old  Testament  of  that  eternal  life  which  is  in- 
dependent of  things  temporal,  and  superior  even 
to  death  itself.  It  became,  therefore,  the  permanent 
record  of  that  portion  in  God  which  was  the  pos- 
session of  the  Lord's  anointed  or  holy  one,  and 
was  a  perpetual  witness  to  the  delight  in  God,  and 


teentli 
Psalm. 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms. 


tlie  sense  of  security  in  and  through  death  which 
he  found  in  God.  That  there  were  other  more 
definite  elements  in  his  hope  does  not  appear  from 
the  Language  used;  but  here  was  the  very  essence  of 
that  hope  which  was  afterwards  presented  in  a 
concrete  form  and  estal)lished  by  the  resurrection. 
Here  was  the  evidence  that  David  himself  had  un- 
mistakably expressed  a  hope  which  a  subsequent 
event,  if  true,  had  fully  confirmed ;  a  hope  which 
could  alone  be  proved  to  be  valid  by  the  manifesta- 
tion of  its  truth  in  one  particular  and  crucial 
instance.  But  when  it  was  clear  that  such  a  hope 
had  a  thousand  years  before  been  expressed  by 
David,  there  was  at  least  a  written  warranty  for  an 
expectation  which  was  then  declared  to  have  been 
verified.  To  say  that  David's  language  was  in- 
tended, not  by  David  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  to 
refer  to  the  event  which  verified  it,  could  be  within 
the  power  only  of  men  who  themselves  spake  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.  If  we  call  in  question  their  claim 
to  do  this,  we  cannot  prove  the  truth  of  what  they 
afiirmed ;  but  it  is  not  open  to  question  that  such  a 
hope  as  this  had  been  expressed  by  David,  or  by  the 
writer  of  the  sixteenth  Psalm,  whoever  he  was ;  and 
if  we  accept  the  fact  which  the  apostles  of  Christ  pro- 
claimed, we  can  see  not  only  the  reasonableness  of  this 
hope,  but  the  probability  there  is  that  the  God  who 
implanted  it  reserved  the  accomplishment  of  His 
own  purposes  in  the  language  chosen  to  express  it. 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  hi. 


T^'ie  The    20tli    and    21st   Psalms,    it   is    o-enerally 

and  siip]3osed,    iiiust    be    taken    tosjetlier.       They    are 

twenty-  ^^,  ,  °  '' 

first  ascribed    to    David,    and    as    the   first    of    them 

makes  mention  of  the  Lord's  anointed,  we  may 
presume,  for  the  reasons  already  given,  rightly  so. 
They  occupy  a  remarkable  position  between  the 
IGth  and  the  22d  Psalms.  The  IGth  Psalm 
expressed  the  writer's  confidence  of  deliverance  in 
and  through  death,  the  21st  Psalm  speaks  of  his 
coronation  and  his  endless  life.  He  is  also  mani- 
festly the  anointed  king  who  has  been  made  exceed- 
ing glad  with  the  countenance  of  God.  Now  here, 
whatever  else  there  is,  there  is  certainly  the  expres- 
sion of  a  hope  full  of  immortality.  We  have 
evidence  that  the  Jews  long  afterwards  interpreted 
this  Psalm  of  the  King  Messiah  ;  ^  but  the  point  I 
wish  to  observe  is,  that  the  Psalms  clearly  ascribe 
to  the  anointed  king,  whoever  he  may  be,  deliver- 
ance in  death,  length  of  days  for  ever  and  ever, 
and  special  glory  in  the  Divine  salvation.  AVe 
may  fairly  ask.  What  possible  meaning  could  David 
have  in  saying  that  he  had  asked  life  of  the  most 
High,  and  that  He  had  given  it  him,  even  length 
of  days  for  ever  and  ever  ?  We  may  with  equal 
fairness,  ask,  AVhat  possible  meaning  could  future 
generations  attach  to  such  language,  after  David 
had  been  laid  unto  his  fathers  and  had  seen  corrup- 
tion ?     The  meaning  that  has  been  attached "  we  of 

^  See  the  Targum  and  Rashi. 
^  See  Perowne  on  I.  c.  and  xxiii.  6;  Ixi.  6  ;  xci.  16. 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  1 1 3 

course  know.  It  is  that  which  is  derived  from  the 
familiar  phrase,  0  king,  live  for  ever,  or  the  expres- 
sion, /  ivill  dwell  in  tJie  house  of  the  Lord  for  ever, 
and  the  like ;  and  it  is  plainly  possible  so  to  under- 
stand it.  But  it  is  no  less  certain  that  so  to  un- 
derstand the  language,  does  not  exhaust  its  possible 
meaning.  And  is  there  not  an  abidino;  witness  in 
the  language  itself,  to  a  fuller  and  further  meaning, 
which  needs  only  to  be  suggested  to  commend  itself 
as  at  once  the  truest  and  the  best  ?  Was  there  not 
in  such  language  another  foundation-stone  laid  for 
the  superstructure  which  was  afterwards  to  be 
reared  ?  and  is  it  not  possible  that  the  more  ardent 
spirits  in  Israel  may  have  grasped  a  hope  which 
was  suggested,  if  it  was  not  implied,  in  such  words 
as  these  ?  Material  was  at  any  rate  thus  being 
accumulated,  which,  in  times  of  great  national 
or  individual  trouble,  would  supply  the  ground- 
work for  anticipations  which  had  not  been  felt 
before.  Elements  were  held  in  solution  which 
affliction  might  precipitate  in  a  very  distinct  and 
definite  form.  The  language  itself  was  pregnant 
with  hopes  which  future  circumstances  might 
develop  into  being,  and  awaken  to  conscious 
life. 

Nor  must  we  forget  that  the  writer  of  the  20tli 
Psalm,  while  looking  for  his  help  from  God,   in- 
vokes Him  as  the  God  of  Jacob.     This  is  the  first 
occasion  on  which  the  Psalmist  has  used  this  phrase. 
I 


1 14  The  Christ  of  Lect.  hi. 

It  can  have  had  no  meaning  to  him  but  the  mean- 
ing which  we  understand  by  it — a  meaning  which 
is  derived  from  our  acquaintance  with  the  facts  of 
the  Mosaic  history,  with  which  he  therefore  must 
have  been  familiar  too.  But  the  use  of  this  phrase 
implies  not  only  his  knowledge  of  those  facts,  but 
his  belief  also  that  there  was  a  special  relation  in 
which  Jacob  stood  to  God,  that  he  was  a  party  to  a 
real  covenant  and  the  inheritor  of  a  real  promise. 
It  serves  therefore  at  once,  collaterally  and  in- 
dependently, to  authenticate  this  portion  of  the 
Mosaic  narrative,  and  also  to  give  additional  mean- 
ing to  the  Psalmist's  view  of  his  own  position. 
God  was  the  God  of  Jacob  because  He  had  chosen 
Jacob — because  He  had  given  him  a  special  promise 
and  dealt  with  him  in  a  special  way.  As  far  as 
David  represented  the  seed  of  Jacob,  and  gathered 
up  in  himself  the  blessing  vouchsafed  to  Israel,  he 
must  have  regarded  that  promise  as,  in  a  special 
sense,  his  own.  He  w^as  the  focus  in  which  all  the 
rays  of  it  converged.  And  consequently  every  in- 
dication of  God's  dealings  with  himself  was  an 
indication  of  His  dealings  with  the  chosen  seed,  and 
his  lano-uao-e  shows  us  fhat  he  felt  it  so  to  be. 


'&' 


The  The  next  Psalm  which  we  have  to  deal  with  is 

se?o"nd       the  22d.     This  Psalm  aftbrds  a  striking  instance  of 

'^ '  '       a   feature    which     is    characteristic    of   so    many ; 

namely,  the  abrupt  transition  from  sorrow  to  joy. 

Two-thirds  of  it  are  taken  up  with  the  utterance  of 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  1 1 5 

the  extremest  misery ;  but  in  the  last  ten  verses 
the  writer  is  as  triumphant  as  he  was  before 
dejected.  Before  he  has  been  crying  from  the 
depths  of  despair;  now  he  suddenly  passes  into 
praise  and  becomes  hopeful  and  confident.  But 
neither  the  sorrow  nor  the  joy  can  be  understood 
as  applying  to  David  or  to  any  other  conceivable 
writer.  We  not  only  cannot  imagine  that  David 
himself  was  ever  the  subject  of  the  treatment  here 
described,  but  that  he  would  ever  have  described 
any  personal  afflictions  to  which  he  was  exposed  in 
such  a  way.  The  language  becomes  practically 
unmeaning  in  his  case,  making  every  possible  allow- 
ance for  hyperbole,  and  the  national  records  furnish 
us  with  no  other  character  to  whom  it  is  likely  to 
have  been  more  appropriate.  The  same  expecta- 
tion, however,  of  universal  dominion,  which  was 
expressed  in  the  second  Psalm,  finds  place  also  here  ; 
but  it  is  distinctly  said  that  tlie  hingdorn  is  the 
Lord's,  and  that  He  is  the  ruler  among  the  heathen. 
It  is  also  said  that  a  people  yet  unborn  shall 
recognise  the  work  of  the  Lord  in  the  particular 
deliverance  which  the  Psalm  records — a  statement 
entirely  without  meaning  in  the  case  of  David,  but 
pregnant  with  the  fullest  significance  when  other- 
wise understood.  And  it  is  plain  that  any  one 
who  pondered  such  language  as  this  after  David's 
time  must  have  had  perplexing  inc[uiries  stirred 
within  him  if  he  tried  to  understand  it.     Whatever 


1 1 6  The  Christ  of  Lect.  hi. 

the  writer  may  have  meant  or  understood,  it  is 
clear  that  his  hmguage  was  marvellously  suggestive. 
It  seemed  to  express  and  to  open  out  anticipations 
which  it  was  difficult  to  limit,  and  still  more  diffi- 
cult to  define.  Hopes  had  manifestly  centred  in 
David's  throne  which  were  never  realised ;  but  as 
long  as  David's  language  remained,  they  could  not 
die.  It  is  no  wonder  if  they  gave  the  impulse  to 
other  hopes  destined  likewise  to  disappointment, 
and  yet  the  more  likely  to  be  fulfilled  the  more  the 
spirit  of  the  language  was  entered  into. 
The  fortieth  The  40tli  Psalm  is,  in  many  respects,  analogous 
to  the  22d,  but  it  is  more  within  the  possible  limits 
of  the  writer's  own  experience,  and  it  closes  without 
the  same  confident  expressions  of  triumph.  Like 
the  50tli  and  51st  Psalms,  also,  it  expresses  a  con- 
viction of  the  uselessness  of  sacrifices,  and  the  far 
greater  importance  of  conformity  to  the  Divine  will. 
It  is  thus  a  proof  that  the  author  had  risen  to  a  high 
spiritual  appreciation  of  the  law,  which  he  admitted 
to  be  binding  on  him,  if  we  do  not,  with  the 
Septuagint  and  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  regard 
it  as  an  evidence  that  he  saw  in  the  voluiiie  of  the 
hook  prophetic  allusions  to  himself  and  his  seed. 
But  the  fact  is,  that  this,  in  common  with  the 
other  Psalms,  becomes  far  more  significant  when 
understood  of  Another,  than  it  can  ^^ossibly  be  when 
referred  to  David  or  to  any  one  else,  and  fitly  there- 
fore takes  its  place  among  those  marvellous  com- 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  1 1 7 

positions  which  waited  for  their  elucidation  till  the 
fulness  of  time  should  come. 

In  vivid  contrast  with  this  is  the  45th  Psalm,  to  The  forty- 
which  we  now  turn.  This  is  manifestly  and  pro-  Psaim. 
fessedly  a  song  of  love — an  epithalamium,  or  mar- 
riage ode,  in  honour  of  some  king,  whoever  he  may 
have  been.  But  it  is  not  a  little  surprising  that,  in 
the  sixth  verse,  his  throne  is  identified  with  the 
throne  of  God,  and  that  he  himself  is  addressed  as 
God.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  2d,  the  20th, 
and  the  21st  Psalms,  it  shows  plainly  that  there 
was  in  the  Psalmist's  mind  an  eternal  King  and  an 
eternal  kingdom  with  which  the  throne  of  David 
was,  in  some  mysterious  way,  not  identified,  but 
associated.  Had  it  not  been  for  such  an  associa- 
tion, he  could  never  have  spoken  of  himself  or 
his  kingdom  as  he  so  often  did.  But  when  we 
connect  this,  as  we  are  obliged  to  do,  with  the 
promise  to  the  fathers,  of  which  David  was  aware, 
we  not  only  see  that  there  was  already  a  develop- 
ment, as  well  as  a  limitation,  of  the  original  idea, 
but  that  the  writer  himself  must  have  been  con- 
scious of  it.  And  if  in  any  case,  as  apparently  here 
in  the  45th  Psalm,  that  writer  was  not  David,  the 
persistency  with  which  his  conceptions  attached 
themselves  to  David,  and  centred  in  him,  is  not 
the  less  remarkable  or  significant.  The  fact  that 
the  convictions  concerning  David's  throne  were 
shared  by  others  besides  himself,  that  they  were  not 


1 1 8  The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 

only  personal  but  national,  must  be  held  to  make 
tliem  at  least  more  worthy  of  our  regard.  It  could 
have  been  no  ordinary  afflatus  which,  going  forth, 
in  the  first  instance,  perhaps  from  David,  thus 
extended  and  communicated  itself  to  the  sons  of 
Korah,  and  inspired  them  with  sentiments  which, 
like  his  own,  found  expression  in  language  tran- 
scending the  limits  of  the  temj)oral  or  the  human, 
to  be  fulfilled  and  warranted  only  by  the  eternal 
and  the  Divine.  Certainly,  at  this  time,  whatever 
hopes  had  been  raised  by  the  promise  to  Abraham, 
had  centred  in  the  person  of  a  king,  and  in  the 
desire  for  a  universal  and  an  endless  kingdom. 
The  In   no   Psalm,    however,    is    this    expressed   so 

second  plainly  as  in  the  72d,  which  is  apparently  ascribed 
to  Solomon,  and  at  all  events  has  reference  to  him. 
Here,  again,  the  subject  is  i\ie  hing  and  the  hings 
son.  But  the  language  is  utterly  unintelligible 
when  interpreted  of  any  temporal  king.  There  can 
be  as  little  doubt,  however,  that  it  was  suo-o-ested 
by  the  actual  circumstances  of  a  living  monarch ; 
and  it  seems,  therefore,  to  contain  indisputable  proof 
that,  at  the  time  of  its  composition,  the  very  exist- 
ence of  the  Davidic  throne  had  suggested  to  the 
foremost  minds  of  the  nation  the  conception  of  a 
Divine  kingdom,  which  should  be  established  in 
righteousness,  which  should  be  the  refuo-e  and  the 
security  of  the  oppressed,  which  should  receive  the 
homage  of,   and   be  supreme   over,  all  kingdoms; 


Lect.  hi.  The  Psalms.  1 19 

wliicli  should  be  as  permanent  as  the  sun  and  the 
moon,  and  Ije  the  centre  and  source  of  universal 
blessing.  Common  sense  protests  against  the  notion 
that  the  most  ardent  and  ^^atriotic  Israelite  can  ever 
have  imagined  this  to  be  literally  true,  or  to  be  in- 
tended to  be  understood  literally  of  the  personal 
throne  of  either  David  or  Solomon.  But  it  is 
equally  obvious  that  such  ardent  and  enthusiastic 
hopes  were  not  only  cherished,  but  expressed.  The 
natural  inference  therefore  is,  that  at  this  time  the 
establishment  of  what  promised,  and  was  hoped,  to 
be  a  permanent  throne  in  Israel,  had  given  a  power- 
ful impulse  in  the  nation  to  the  longing  for  a  great 
and  glorious  dominion,  which  should  be  superior  to 
all  other  monarchies,  should  gather  up  all  into 
itself,  and  should  last  for  ever ;  while  the  utterance 
that  such  longings  found  in  the  poems  of  David 
and  others  was  calculated  to  spiritualise  and  elevate 
their  character,  to  ennoble  and  direct  their  tendency, 
to  raise  them  off  the  earthly  and  the  human,  and  to 
plant  them  in  the  heavenly  and  the  Divine. 

The  89th  Psalm,  which  is  inscribed  as  a  Mas- The 
chil  of  Ethan  the  Ezrahite,   is  highly  important,  nlmh^ 
because    it    gives    an    independent    and    poetical    ''^^^' 
version  of  the  original   promise   made    to  David, 
and  of  which  the  historic  record  is  preserved   in 
2   Sam.   vii.     At  whatever  period  the  poem  was 
composed,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that 
the  record,  in  some  form  or  other,  was  already  in 


I20 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  hi. 


existence.  If  the  poem  was  not  based  upon  the 
record,  as  it  is  most  natural  to  suppose,  then  the 
record  must  have  been  suggested  by  the  poem, 
or  borrowed  from  some  earlier  document  no  longer 
extant.  But  in  any  case  the  poem  and  the  nar- 
rative may  be  taken  as  affording  independent  evi- 
dence to  the  same  event.  The  existing  form, 
moreover,  of  the  poem  is  almost  conclusive  proof 
of  its  later  origin.  But  the  writer  had  so  little 
doubt  of  the  reality  of  the  original  promise,  that 
he  was  staggered  solely  by  its  non-fulfilment.  The 
reproach  that  he  bore  in  his  bosom  was  on  this 
account,  and  by  such  discipline  his  faith  in  the 
promise  was  rooted  and  confirmed.  But  it  is  un- 
intelligible that  a  belief  so  deep  should  have  taken 
hold  of  the  national  mind  in  the  way  it  evidently 
had,  if  no  foundation  for  it  had  existed  in  fact.  In 
this  respect  the  poem  and  the  history  are  mutually 
corroborative.  For  some  reason  or  other  the  nation 
had  become  possessed  with  the  idea  that  the  per- 
manence of  David's  throne  was  something  to  which 
the  Divine  faithfulness  was  pledged.  And  for  the 
first  time  we  find  this  conviction  expressing  itself 
in  the  terms  of  a  forward-looking  hope.  The  eye  of 
the  writer  is  turned  from  the  contemplation  of  the 
past  to  the  distinct  anticipation  of  the  future.  His 
enemies  have  reproached  him  for  the  tardiness  of 
the  Lord's  anointed.  The  lovingkindness  that  had 
been  sworn  unto  David  had  not  yet  been  fulfilled, 


The  Psalms.  1 2 1 


but  had  called  forth  a  definite  longing  for  fulfil- 
ment. The  real  anointed  one  was  yet  to  come. 
David  and  Saul  had  each  borne  that  title,  but  the 
next  that  was  to  bear  it  with  truth  and  justice  was 
the  object  of  hope  :  his  footsteps  were  delayed;  but 
so  ardently  was  his  advent  longed  for,  that  his 
very  delay  had  become  the  occasion  for  reproach 
and  ridicule.  The  writer's  enemies  had  reproached 
him  for  his  absurd  and  visionary  hopes.  An  extra- 
ordinary evidence  this,  no  matter  when  the  Psalm 
was  written,  to  the  reality  of  an  anticipation  of 
some  kind,  and  of  the  way  in  which  it  was  con- 
nected in  the  popular  mind,  so  far  as  the  Psalmist 
was  a  type  of  it,  wdth  promises  alleged  to  have 
been  made  to  David,  and  commonly  believed  in  as 
pertaining  to  him.  Moreover,  the  whole  glory  of 
the  nation  is  clearly  regarded  as  centred  in  and 
represented  by  the  occupant  of  David's  throne  and 
the  covenant  by  which  it  was  established.  The 
national  honour  was  in  the  dust  because  the  throne 
of  David  was  cast  down  to  the  ground,  and  because 
the  days  of  his  perpetual  youth  and  the  long  life 
which  had  been  promised  him  had  been  shortened. 

The  next  important  Psalm  which  requires  to  be  The  hun- 
noticed  is  the   110th,     This   Psalm   opens  with  a  tenth 
declaration  of  the  Lord — the  revealed  God  of  the 
nation — to  a  person  whom  the  writer  calls  his  lord. 
Disregarding  the  ascription,^  or  doing  violence  to 

'   It  is  insciibed  a  Psalm  of  David. 


122  The  CInist  of  lkct.  III. 

the  interpretation  of  it,  that  person  may  be  pre- 
sumed to  liave  been  David ;  but  then  the  subject- 
matter  of  this  decLaration,  Sit  tliou  on  my  right 
hand,  becomes  extravagantly  inappropriate,  not  to 
say  wholly  unintelligible.  Nor  is  there  any  evi- 
dence that  a  covenant  of  priesthood  had  ever  been 
made,  or  was  ever  supposed  to  have  been  made, 
with  David.  There  is  no  trace,  anywhere  in  the 
history,  of  a  combination  of  the  royal  and  priestly 
functions  in  the  person  of  David  or  of  any  other  king, 
similar  to  that  which  is  recorded  of  Melchizedec, 
who  is  the  type  or  pattern  selected.  For  though 
certain  kings  may  have  exercised  certain  functions 
more  properly  sacerdotal,  such  as  blessing  the  people 
and  the  like,  it  was  never  said  of  any  king  that  he 
was  the  priest  of  the  most  high  God,  nor  does  it 
seem  at  all  probable  that  David  could  ever  have 
been  addressed,  or  have  suffered  himself  to  be 
addressed,  in  the  language  of  the  Psalm,  which,  in 
fact,  if  applied  to  him,  is  contradicted  by  the  whole 
tenor  of  the  existing  history.  Not  more  possible  is 
it  to  regard  this  poem  as  a  later  production  of 
Maccabsean  times,  when  the  functions  of  the  j^riest 
and  ruler  were  combined.^  Its  archaic  appearance 
is  then  inexplicable,  as  well  as  the  ascription  which 
it  bears  and  the  traditional  belief  of  its  origin  which 
had  already  obtained  in  the  time  of  Christ.  But  if 
it  is  really  ancient,  and  cannot  have  been  addressed 

^   1  Mac.  xiv.  41. 


The  Psalms. 


to  David  or  to  any  descendant  of  David,  we  can 
only  infer  that  it  was  written  by  David,  and 
addressed  to  an  unknown  person  whom  he  calls 
his  lord.  This  person  is  described  as  a  warrior, 
but  a  warrior  for  whom  the  Lord  fights,  while  he 
sits  calmly  and  passively  at  His  right  hand.  The 
rod  or  symbol  of  his  strength  is  to  be  sent  forth  by 
the  Lord  from  out  of  Zion,  and  he  is  to  rule  in  the 
midst  of  his  enemies.  His  people,  for  he  is  king  as 
well  as  warrior,  are  to  be  free-will  offerings  in  the 
day  of  his  powder,  and  are  to  throng  around  him 
thick  as  the  dewdrops  of  the  dawn  upon  the  moun- 
tains and  the  plains,  clad  in  the  bright  and  glorious 
array  of  holiness.  His  own  youth  is  to  be  fresh 
and  vigorous  from  the  fountains  of  the  dawn.  He 
is  to  be  rejuvenescent  like  the  "  beam  celestial " 

"  Which  evermore  makes  all  things  new," 

according  as  we  prefer  to  understand  the  marvellously 
condensed  language  and  profuse  imagery  of  the  poet. 
But  more  conspicuous  than  his  character  as  warrior 
and  king  is  the  fact  of  his  priestly  office.  This  has 
been  the  subject  of  the  most  emphatic  declaration 
of  the  Almighty.  The  Lord  sware  and  ivill  not 
repent,  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order 
of  Melchizedec.  As  this  is  the  only  allusion  in  the 
Old  Testament  to  the  mysterious  King  of  Salem, 
it  is  of  course  conclusive  proof  that  the  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Genesis  was  in  existence  at  the  time 


1 24  TJie  Christ  of 


when  this  Psalm  was  written,  whenever  that  was. 
But  it  is  likewise  proof  that  the  writer  must  have 
contemplated  another  priesthood  than  that  of  Aaron, 
and  apparently  have  regarded  it  as  more  complete 
and  permanent  thaii  his.  The  possessor  of  this 
priesthood  was  the  warrior  king  to  whom  his 
poem  was  addressed.  So  that  the  person  he  has 
in  view  combines  in  himself  these  various  functions, 
but  by  far  the  most  prominent  is  that  of  priest,  for 
his  priesthood  is  after  a  new  order,  or  rather  after 
an  old  order  revived.  The  function  of  warrior  also 
appears  to  be  less  real  than  figurative,  for  he  is 
content  to  let  the  Lord  fight  for  him,  as  indeed  He 
continues  to  do  throughout  the  Psalm,  smiting 
kings  in  the  day  of  His  wrath,  judging  among  the 
nations,  filling  their  countries  with  the  slain,  and 
destroying  the  most  powerful  of  their  monarchies. 
And,  lastly,  like  Gideon's  warriors,  this  priestly 
king  is  himself  to  be  refreshed  on  his  way  to  victory 
by  water  from  the  brook,  and  so  to  pass  on  con- 
quering and  to  conquer. 

If,  however,  in  order  to  avoid  the  somewhat  vio- 
lent and  unnatural  change  of  position  assigned  to  this 
mysterious  personage,  who  first  sits  on  the  Lord's 
right  hand,  and  then  fights  with  the  Lord  on  his,  we 
regard  the  fifth  verse  as  addressed  not  to  him,  but  to 
the  Most  High,  then  it  is  clear  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
poet  he  is  not  only  king,  warrior,  and  priest,  but  en- 
titled also  to  the  Divine  and  incommunicable  name 


Lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  125 

Adonai/  The  Lord  (whom  before  in  the  first  verse 
the  poet  has  called  my  Lord),  seated  at  thy  right 
hand,  0  God,  hath  smitten  through  kings  in  the 
day  of  his  ivrath :  he  is  judge  among  the  nations, 
whose  lands  are  filled  with  slain,  while  their  most 
poweifid  monarchs  are  overthroivn  hy  him. 

In  either  case  there  is  a  change  of  imagery — in 
the  one  with  regard  to  the  position  of  the  subject, 
in  the  other  with  regard  to  his  personal  action ;  for 
he  who  before  was  seated  on  his  throne  is  now 
represented  as  engaged  in  active  fight :  but  this 
matters  not — the  main  point  is  that  the  Psalm  is 
a  witness  to  the  conception  in  the  mind  of  the 
writer  of  a  person  whom  he  called  his  Lord,  and 
-who  was  king,  warrior,  and  priest.  His  cause  is 
evidently  the  cause  of  the  Most  High,  for  it  is  He 
who  fights  for  him.  And  as  in  the  second  Psalm  the 
establishment  of  the  king's  throne  was  the  subject 
of  Divine  appointment,  so  here  the  king's  priest- 
hood is  the  subject  of  a  Divine  and  irrevocable 
oath.  Dark  and  mysterious  as  these  utterances 
must  have  seemed  to  the  peoj)le  of  that  time,  and 
not  improbably  to  him  who  wrote  them,  they  are  at 
least  evidence  as  to  the  nature  of  ideas  then  pre- 
valent of  a  person  at  once  royal  and  priestly, 
exalted  to  a  position  of  great  eminence,  and  going 
forth  to  victory  which  should  place  the  kings  of 

^  Cf.  the  apparent  application   of  fl^i^'}  to  the  angel  of  the  cove- 
nant iu  Mai.  iii.  1. 


The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 


the  eartli  in  subjection  under  liim.  Whatever  may 
have  been  the  incidents  and  circumstances  which 
gave  rise  to  such  conceptions,  we  are  not  only 
competent  to  estimate  their  character  when  formed, 
but  able  likewise  to  see  that  the  brilliancy  of  their 
colour  would  remain  long  after  the  aspirations 
which  originated  them  had  failed,  and,  like  that 
of  autumnal  leaves  on  the  mountain  or  the  forest, 
would  deepen  as  they  decayed.  And  when  the 
fortunes  of  the  nation  sunk  to  their  loAvest  ebb,  the 
permanent  record  of  such  thoughts  would  be  pre- 
cisely that  around  which  the  hopes  and  affections 
of  the  people  would  gather,  and  to  which  they 
would  cling  most  tenaciously. 
Thehun-  In  illustration  of  this  there  remains  one  other 

thirty'-  Psalm  of  probably  a  much  later  period  which  calls 
p?a°m.  for  particular  notice,  namely  the  132d.  This,  like 
the  89th  Psalm,  is  independent  evidence  of  the  pro- 
mise that  had  been  made  to  David,  Of  the  fruit  of 
thy  body  ivill  I  set  upon  thy  tlirone.  It  appears  also 
to  be  evidence  that,  whenever  it  was  written,  that 
promise  was  not  considered  to  have  been  fulfilled  ; 
but  it  is  likewise  proof  that  such  fulfilment  was 
anxiously  looked  for  and  ardently  believed  in.  The 
phenomenon,  therefore,  that  we  have  to  account  for 
is  the  existence  of  this  belief.  If  we  could  deter- 
mine accurately  the  date  of  every  psalm,  we  might 
speak  with  additional  confidence.  But  the  internal 
evidence  of  this  particular  2)oem  is  sufficient  war- 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  1 2  7 

rant  for  what  has  been  said.  During  the  lifetime 
of  David  there  would  have  been  no  room  for  such  a 
production,  still  less  during  that  of  Solomon,  Avhen 
the  primary  fulfilment  of  the  promise  was  obvious. 
We  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  refer  it  to  a  later 
period,  when  it  seemed  that  the  Lord  required  to  l)e 
reminded  of  all  that  had  been  sworn  in  truth  unto 
David — when,  for  the  sake  of  all  that  had  been 
so  sworn  to  him,  God  might  be  entreated  to 
turn  not  back  the  face  of  His  anointed.  In  fact,  the 
later  we  place  the  date  of  this  Psalm  the  more  re- 
markable that  expression  tlie,  Lord's  anointed  be- 
comes ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  refer  it  to 
the  time  of  David  himself,  it  is  almost  needful  to 
assume  the  exercise  of  a  prophetic  gift  to  account 
for  its  production  at  all.  Here  also  we  meet  with 
the  same  identification  of  David  with  the  anointed 
one  (ver.  1 7)  which  has  been  mentioned  before,  and 
yet  it  is  expressed  in  a  way  that  seems  to  show  that 
he  personally  was  not  entitled  to  the  full  signifi- 
cance of  that  name.  But  at  all  events  we  have  here 
again  an  evidence  of  the  belief  that  in  the  seed  of 
David  there  was  laid  up  a  hope  for  the  nation,  and 
that  the  nation,  so  far  as  this  writer  represented 
them,  clung  to  the  promise  of  the  hope. 

This,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  evidence  which  is  Summary 
afforded  by  the  Psalms  to  the  development  of  those  evidence 
national  anticipations  that  gradually,  and  after  a  p^lms!^ 
long  period,  shaped  themselves  to  a  definite  form. 


128  The  Christ  of  lect.  in. 

Although  as  compositions  the  Psahiis  are  phiiiily  to 
be  referred  to  various  ages  ;  yet,  as  anonymous  pro- 
ductions, as  they  often  are,  they  have  a  certain 
claim  to  be  regarded  as  a  fair  expression  of  the 
national  thought  uttering  itself  in  poj^ular  odes  and 
hymns.  They  are,  in  the  first  place,  a  clear  proof  of 
the  way  in  which  the  people  regarded  themselves  as 
inheritors  of  a  blessing  pronounced  upon  their 
fathers.  It  was  as  the  seed  of  Jacob  that  they  were 
near  to  God.  There  is  no  other  explanation  of  this 
belief  than  that  which  is  supplied  by  the  Mosaic 
record  of  a  promise  attaching  to  the  seed  of  Jacob. 
The  form  in  which  this  promise  is  originally  found 
is  vaoue  and  s^eneral.  It  is  the  Psalms  that  show 
us  a  gradual  limitation  of  the  national  ideas  in  a 
special  direction.  The  promise  believed  to  have 
been  given  originally  to  Abraham,  and  connected 
with  his  seed  at  large,  is  now  found  to  be  centred 
in  David,  and  attached  to  the  permanence  of  his 
throne.  The  identification  of  the  promises  in  both 
cases  needs  not  to  be  shown.  We  may,  if  we  please, 
regard  them  as  distinct.  It  is  the  fact  that  requires 
to  be  grasj^ed,  which  the  literature  itself  demon- 
strates, that  in  the  time  of  David,  and  ever  after- 
wards, his  family  and  throne  were  regarded  in  a 
special  manner  as  inheriting  Divine  promises  and  a 
Divine  blessing ;  while  the  additional  fact  of  this 
very  limitation  is  itself  a  proof  that  in  point  of  time 
it  must  have  followed   after,  and  not  preceded,  a 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  129 

wider,  less  limited,  and  more  general  belief.  To 
have  invented  the  notion  of  promises  made  to  Abra- 
ham after  the  belief  had  originated  of  blessings 
which  centred  in  David,  would  have  been  unmean- 
ing and  impossible ;  while  the  rise  and  origin 
of  this  belief  would  still  remain  to  be  accounted 
for. 

The  earliest  traces  and  records  of  the  nation 
which  we  possess  or  can  discover  leave  us  in  no 
doubt  as  to  the  way  in  which  they  regarded  them- 
selves. The  mere  existence  of  a  character  like 
David,  and  the  belief  which  was  centred  in  him, 
would  have  been  impossible  except  in  a  people  who 
believed  themselves  to  hold  the  exceptional  position 
which  their  records  assign  to  them.  While,  there- 
fore, the  evidence  of  the  hope  which  centred  in 
David  is  patent  and  documentary,  we  cannot  ac- 
count for  it  without  postulating  an  earlier,  more 
simple,  and  more  general  beHef,  of  which  we  have 
indeed  ostensible  records  that  on  the  whole  may  be 
judged  to  present  a  trustworthy  account  of  its 
origin,  inasmuch  as  none  can  be  devised  at  once  so 
natural,  so  simple,  or  so  complete. 

And  looking  at  the  matter  in  this  light,  it  is  for 
us  to  determine  the  relation  between  the  promise  to 
Abraham  and  that  to  David,  or  whether  they  are 
wholly  distinct  and  independent.  All  that  we  can 
say  upon  the  evidence  presented  by  the  Psalms  is 
that  they  are  a  very  remarkable  expression  of  the 

K 


1 30  The  Christ  of  Lect.  hi, 

national  belief  centred  in  David,  and   a  very  re- 
markable effect  arising  from  it. 

Nor  is  there  any  similar  result  which  can  be 
produced  as  a  parallel  to  this  from  any  other  litera- 
ture. We  may  even  doubt  whether  some  confirma- 
tion of  the  reality  and  validity  of  the  belief  is  not 
afforded  by  the  very  productions  to  which  it  gave  rise. 
For  it  is  not  unreasonable  to  infer  that  effects  unique 
and  unparalleled  in  themselves  are  indications  of  a 
unique  and  unparalleled  cause.  And  consequently, 
as  the  literature  produced  by  the  Davidic  promise  is 
some  evidence  of  the  reality  of  the  promise  itself, 
so  is  the  presumable  reality  of  the  Davidic  promise 
some  confirmation  and  evidence  of  an  earlier  pro- 
mise— some  proof  that  it  must  have  existed,  and  if 
it  existed,  some  proof  likewise  of  its  fulfilment. 

Of  course,  if  we  assume  the  possibility  and  the 
actual  occurrence  of  a  Divine  communication,  the 
explanation  of  the  whole  matter  is  simple  enough ; 
but  we  desire  to  forego  this  assumption,  and  to 
arrive  if  possible  at  a  result  which  shall  be  at  once 
unbiassed  and  satisfactory,  upon  an  impartial  con- 
sideration of  the  evidence  at  hand.  And  consider- 
ing the  nature  and  amount  of  this  evidence  : — ^that 
it  is  in  the  truest  sense  documentary,  because  com- 
prised in  a  national  literature;  that  it  is  to  be 
referred  to  many  epochs  and  many  authors ;  that  it 
is  consistent  with  itself  and  not  contradictory,  for 
from  first  to  last  there  is  no  rival  to  dispute  with 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  1 3 1 

David  the  inheritance  of  the  promise  made  to  liim, 
since  the  case  of  Jeroboam  is  not  analogous ;  con- 
sidering that  the  form  it  assumes,  whether  of  suffer- 
ing or  of  triumph,  whether  of  glory  or  of  shame,  is 
one  that  no  theory  of  exaggeration  will  sufficiently 
account  for  ;  that  this  hope,  wdiile  it  centres  in  the 
faQiily  and  seed  of  David,  is  at  one  time  the  hope 
of  victory  over  death,  of  pleasures  at  God's  right 
hand  for  evermore,  at  another  of  endless  life  and 
coronation  with  eternal  felicity,  at  another  of  uni- 
versal dominion  and  the  perpetuity  of  his  throne,  of  a 
king  who  is  to  sit  at  Grod's  right  hand  and  yet  to  be 
a  priest  for  ever,  but  not  like  the  sons  of  Levi ;  that 
when  the  nation  is  at  its  lowest,  the  hope  is  still 
bright   and   vivid   that   the   house   of  David  will 

o 

flourish,  that  the  Lord  has  ordained  a  lamp  for  His 
anointed ; — considering  all  this,  and  even  more  than 
this,  it  is  hard  to  say  that  the  impression  produced 
by  the  whole  is  not  one  that  bears  witness  to  the 
originating  cause  of  all  as  being  something  more 
than  ordinary,  and  more  than  human. 

Even  if  we  refer  these  literary  phenomena  to  an 
intense  faith  in  the  writers,  yet  there  must  have 
been  some  cause  to  produce  it.  There  must  have 
been  something  to  account  for  its  origin.  There  is 
no  second  instance  of  a  similar  national  faith  produc- 
ing similar  national  results.  We  cannot  refer  it  to 
causes  purely  natural.  No  form  of  nature- worship, 
or  development  of  ideas  suggested  by  the  national 


The  Christ  of  lect.  hi. 


language,  or  outgrowth  of  previously  existing 
heathen  notions,  would  have  sufficed  to  produce  it. 
The  way  in  which  David  was  selected  for  his  high 
office,  was  disciplined  and  prepared  for  it,  was 
recognised  first  by  the  reigning  family  and  after- 
wards by  the  people  at  large,  all  points  to  some  ex- 
ternal motive  power  such  as  that  which  is  supplied 
by  the  conduct  of  Samuel.  Here  would  have  been 
an  adequate  cause  for  the  effect  produced,  and  we 
can  find  no  other  ;  but  then  the  reality  and  the 
genuineness  of  this  cause  finds  its  evidence  in  the 

o 

national  literature,  and  in  the  current  of  the 
national  history.  Take  away  the  cause  and  the 
effect  will  cease ;  but  the  effect  remains  permanent 
and  indestructible,  and  therefore  the  cause  was  real. 

It  is  important  also  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
occurrence  of  the  several  allusions  in  the  Psalms, 
which  presuppose  events  in  the  national  history,  is 
of  the  highest  possible  value  ;  for  if  these  allusions 
are  genuine,  they  afford  independent  confirmation 
of  the  history,  and  if  they  are  otherwise,  then  they 
can  only  have  been  produced  after  the  history  was 
in  existence. 

Moreover,  it  is  abundantly  plain  that  the  era 
of  David  was  fruitful  in  the  production  of  many 
elements,  which  subsequently,  and  with  good  reason, 
became  the  foundation  of  national  hopes  that  centred 
in  an  ideal  personage  who  should  be  royal,  priestly, 
national,  and  human.     We  find  marked  indications 


lect.  III.  The  Psalms.  133 

of  these  cliaracteristic  elements  wliicli  were  original 
with  David,  and  find  their  first  expression  in  the 
Psalms.  Nothing  can  shake  this  evidence,  because 
it  is  cumulative  and  it  is  obvious.  It  does  not  rest 
on  one  circumstance  alone,  but  on  many.  It  is  not 
found  in  one  Psalm,  but  in  many.  It  does  not 
depend  upon  the  genuineness  of  particular  Psalms, 
but  is  equally  significant  whether  they  are  the  pro- 
ductions of  David  or  of  any  one  else,  because  their 
uniform  testimony  points  to  David,  and  to  the 
promise  which  centred  in  him.  They  are  the 
perpetual  record  of  a  nation's  faith,  the  unalterable 
verdict  of  a  nation's  judgment,  which,  being  as  it  is 
entirely  without  parallel,  requires  to  be  accounted 
for,  and  is  fully  accounted  for  on  one  supposition, 
but  on  one  only.  If  the  promise  to  David  was  a 
fact,^  then  the  Messianic  Psalms  are  accounted  for 
and  explained.  If  there  was  in  that  promise  no 
foundation  of  Divine  reality  and  truth,  then  they 
are  a  hopeless  puzzle,  a  phenomenon  without  a  cause, 
destitute  of  interest  and  devoid  of  meaning ;  while, 
on   the   other   hand,   the    very  way  in  which   the 

^  It  can  hardly  be  needful  to  observe  that  David's  title,  as  it  is 
expressed  in  the  Psalms,  cannot  be  resolved  into  a  poetic  or  hyper- 
bolical expression  of  the  truth  of  Prov.  viii.  15  :  By  me  Icings 
reign,  and  p-inces  decree  justice,  and  the  like ;  because  all  the  peculiar 
features  that  characterise  it  suggest  something  very  much  more  than 
any  such  vague  and  general  statement,  and  are  clearly  intended  to 
do  so.  David's  title  is  manifestly  understood  to  be  not  ordinary  but 
special  altogether,  and  alike  exceptional  in  the  annals  of  coutem- 
purary  nations  and  his  own. 


134  The  Christ  of  the  Psalms.  lect.  hi. 

Psalms  transcended  the  limitations  of  the  original 
promise  as  the  history  records  it,  is  itself  an  evi- 
dence of  yet  further  development  and  growth,  a 
proof  that  in  the  promise  there  was  a  germ  which 
was  clestiDcd  to  expand  and  fructify  till  the  whole 
earth  was  covered  with  the  shadow^  and  the  riches 
of  it. 


LECTURE    IV. 


THE    CHRIST    OP  PROPHECY. 


SicuT  in  citharis  et  hujusmodi  organis  musicis,  non  quidem  omnia, 
quae  tanguntur,  canoruni  aliquid  resonant,  sed  tantum  chordae :  csetera 
tamen  in  toto  citharee  corpore  ideo  fabricata  sunt,  ut  essent  iiln 
vincirentur,  unde  et  k  quo  tenderentur  illae,  quas  ad  cantilena) 
suavitatem  modulaturus  et  perculsurus  est  artifex :  Ita  in  his 
propheticis  narrationibus,  qute  de  rebus  gestis  hominum  prophetico 
spiritu  deliguntur,  ant  aliquid  jam  sonant  significatione  futurorum  : 
aut  si  nihil  tale  significant,  ad  hoc  interponuntur,  ut  sit,  unde  ilia 
significantia,  tanquam  sonantia  connectantur. — S.  A^igustinus. 


LECTURE    IV. 

Ajid  beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  'prophets,  he  expoiinded  unto  them 
in  all  the  scriptitres  the  things  concerning  himself. — St.  Luke 
xxiv.  27. 

Taking  the  Psalms  broadly  as  originating  in  the  age  Position 
of  David,  to  which,  doubtless,  many  of  them  belong,  phets!  ^'° 
they  represent  a  condition  of  thought  some  two 
centuries  earlier  than  the  earliest  of  the  prophets, 
while  there  is  probably  no  Psalm  so  late  as  the 
time  of  Malachi.  Prophecy,  moreover,  was  a  dis- 
tinct and  separate  development  of  the  national  life, 
while  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  taken  as  a 
whole,  are  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  and  ori- 
ginal monuments  of  the  national  literature.  It  is 
not  too  much  to  say  that  they  are  unique  in  the 
literature  of  the  world,  and  have  no  parallel  else- 
where. They  constitute,  therefore,  an  independent 
field  for  investigation,  and  exhibit  generally  the 
results  of  a  further  advance  of  national  thought  and 
life. 

It  is  also  manifest  that  the  prophets  were  not  in 
the  position  of  absolutely  new  writers,  who  had  in- 
herited nothing  from  the  past.  They  had  not  only 
the   national   history   but  the  Psalms  of  David  to 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  iv. 


work  upon.  They  were  certainly  familiar  witli, 
and  believed  in,  the  promise  to  David.  They  were 
also  undoubtedly  familiar  with  the  history  of  the 
patriarchs,  and  with  the  promises  said  to  have  been 
made  to  them.  The  writings  of  Hosea,  one  of  the 
earliest  of  the  prophets,  afford  conclusive  evidence 
that  he  was  acquainted  not  only  with  the  Mosaic 
narrative,  but  likewise  with  the  history  recorded  in 
the  books  of  Joshua  and  Judges,  to  which  therefore 
we  may  presume  he  was  indebted  for  it.^  These 
facts  must  not  be  forgotten,  as  they  cannot  be 
denied,  in  dealing  with  the  writings  of  the  prophets. 
We  have  got,  then,  at  the  time  when  the  first  of 
the  prophets  began  to  write,  a  deep  conviction  of 
the  destiny  of  the  people,  and  of  the  relation  in 
which  they  stood  to  God.  We  have  got  the  rooted 
belief  that  they  were  the  depositories  of  Divine  pro- 
mises, covenants,  and  blessings.  We  have  got  the 
knowledge  of  the  rise  and  establishment  of  David's 
throne,  of  the  special  covenant  associated  therewith, 
of  the  apparent  and  repeated  ftiilure  of  the  promise 
made  to  him,   inasmuch   as  a  rival  kingdom  had 

^  Hosea  refers  to  Joshua  vii.  26,  in  ii.  15  ;  to  Judges  xix.  22, 
in  ix.  9  ;  and  to  Judges  xx.,  in  x.  9  ;  also  probably  to  the  lan- 
guage of  the  song  of  Deborah,  Judges  v.  14,  in  v.  8.  In  him  also 
is  found  the  remarkable  prophecy,  iii.  5,  Afterward  shall  the  children 
of  Israel  return  and  seek  the  Lord  their  God,  and  David  their  King  ; 
for  which  see  a  sermon  by  the  writer  in  Good  Words  for  April  1874. 
This  prophecy  is  of  the  greater  importance  as  bearing  on  our  argu- 
ment, because  emanating  from  Israel  and  addret^sed  to  Israel. 


Lect.  IV.  Prophecy. 


arisen.  AVe  have  got,  at  any  rate,  some  of  the  more 
important  Psahns,  such,  for  example,  as  the  2d,  the 
16th,  the  20th,  21st,  and  22d,  the  72d,  and  the 
110th.  The  schools  of  the  prophets  could  not  have 
existed  and  the  prophets  themselves  have  been 
ignorant  of  these  productions,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
very  object  of  those  schools  being  the  encourage- 
ment of  a  Divine  afflatus,  and  the  fostering  of  a 
Divine  education. 

The  prophets,  then,  obviously  had  materials  to 
work  upon  when  they  entered  on  their  mission. 
Nothing  that  they  wrote  could  have  been  written 
in  ignorance  of  these  materials,  or  independently  of 
any  influence  which  the  knowledge  of  them  may 
have  had.  It  is  more  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
some  of  their  utterances  may  have  been  suggested 
by  them.  It  would  be  doing  violence  to  both  to 
dissociate  altogether  the  one  from  the  other. 

The  book  of  Jonah,  the  earliest  of  the  prophets,  Jonah. 
no  matter  when  it  was  written,  is  a  wonderful  illus- 
tration of  Israel's  mission  to  the  world  at  large ;  and 
the  conception  embodied  is  one  which  at  any  period 
is  marvellously  significant.  The  mission  of  Jonah 
to  Nineveh,  which,  so  far  at  any  rate,  is  unquestion- 
able, is  a  marked  instance  of  the  constraining  power 
of  the  prophetic  impulse,  and  also  of  the  way  in 
which  Israel  was  made  to  feel  himself  charged  with 
a  message  to  the  nations.  Moreover,  the  incident 
must  be  referred  to  a  very  early  date,  whenever  the 


1 40  The  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

narrative  of  it  appeared ;  and  it  supplied  a  running 
commentary  on  the  ancient  words,  In  thy  seed  shall 
all  the  families  of  the  earth  he  blessed.  A  prophet 
shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of  your 
brethren. 
Amos.  The  same  is  equally  true  of  Amos,  who  was 
neither  a  prophet  nor  a  prophet's  son,  but  one  of  the 
herdmen  of  Tekoa.  He  takes  up  the  language  of  Joel, 
and  proclaims  the  message  of  the  Lord  to  Syria, 
Philistia,  Tyre,  Edom,  Amnion,  and  Moab,  as  well  as 
to  the  palaces  of  Jerusalem  and  the  mountains  of 
Samaria.  Surely  it  is,  under  all  circumstances,  a 
remarkable  phenomenon  that  a  simple  herdman  and 
gatherer  of  sycomore  fruit  should  have  felt  himself 
moved  at  that  early  age  to  denounce  the  foremost 
nations  of  his  time,  and  to  confront  the  most  power- 
ful monarch  of  his  own  nation  ;  and  that  his  mission 
should  have  been  acknowledged,  as  it  was,  in  an 
idolatrous  and  apostate  land,  and  should  have  pro- 
duced the  result  it  did,  and  should  have  left  to  all 
time  the  permanent  record  that  it  has.  All  this 
becomes  intelligible  on  the  suppositions  just  men- 
tioned, and,  granting  those  suppositions,  it  becomes 
to  a  certain  extent  even  natural ;  whereas,  rejecting 
them,  it  is  neither  intelligible  nor  natural. 

And  it  is  in  this  ancient  prophet  that  we  meet 
with  a  recognition  of  the  promise  made  to  David, 
Avhich  sliows  at  once  his  firm  l)elief  in  it,  and  the 
fact  that  in  his  time  it  had  apparently  failed  :   In 


Lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  141 

that  day  ivill  I  raise  up  the  tahernacle  of  David 
that  is  fallen,  and  close  up  the  breaches  thereof; 
and  I  loill  raise  up  his  ruins,  and  I  will  build  it  as 
in  the  days  of  old }  The  expression  "  tabernacle  "'^ 
is  remarkable,  because  it  seems  to  imply  tlie  giving 
place  to  a  more  permanent  edifice,  as  though  the 
temporal  throne  of  David  was  nothing  more  than  a 
provisional  arrangement ;  while  the  mention  of  "  the 
days  of  old  "  serves  to  show  that  after  the  lapse  of 
two  centuries  the  prophet  still  had  a  sufficiently 
distinct  remembrance  of  it,  and  of  the  promise 
on  which  it  rested. 

And  if  the  language  of  Amos  indicates  any 
change  from  the  way  in  which  the  promise  had 
been  understood  by  David,  such  change  can  only 
be  regarded  as  a  proof  of  development,  inasmuch 
as  the  substance  of  the  promise  is  still  clung  to, 
though  the  expected  manner  of  its  fulfilment  is  dif- 
ferent. Time  was  gradually  unfolding  the  essential 
character  of  the  Davidic  anticipations.  As  the  husk 
decayed  and  died  away,  the  real  permanence  and 
vitality  of  the  kernel  was  more  and  more  revealed. 

Another  prophet  whom  we  must  notice  in  passing  Micah. 
is  Micah,  who  flourished  in  what  may  be  called  the 
Augustan  age  of  prophecy.  The  last  words  of  his 
book  are  an  obvious  proof  of  the  way  in  which  he 
regarded  the  destiny  of  his  nation,  and  may  be  taken 
as  presumptive  evidence  that  he  had  the  record  of 

'   Amos  ix.  1 1.  2  n3D.     Cf.  Is.  xvi.  5,  where  the  word  is  /HN. 


142  The  CJii'ist  of  lect.  iv. 

tlie  promises  before  him: — Tliou  wilt  iierform  the 
truth  to  Jacob,  and  the  mercij  to  Ahraham,  ivliich 
thou  hast  sworn  unto  our  fathers  from  the  days  of 
old.  And  it  was  given  to  Micah  to  add  his  contri- 
bution to  the  growing  definiteness  of  the  ancient 
and  indefinite  promise,  just  as  it  was  given  to  him, 
in  common  with  other  prophets,  to  achieve  a  more 
spiritual  conception  of  the  Divine  service;  for  he 
saw  that  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to 
walk  humbly  before  God,  was  more  acceptable  than 
thousands  of  rams,  or  ten  thousands  of  rivers  of  oil. 
He,  moreover,  has  established  his  claim  to  be  a 
prophet  from  his  clear  enunciation  in  the  palmy 
days  of  Hezekiah,  that  Zlon  should  he  ploughed  as 
afield,  and,  Jerusalem  become  heaps  ;^  and  that  the 
daughter  of  Zion  shoidd  go  forth  out  of  the  city,  and 
divell  in  the  field,  and  go  even  unto  Babylon.-  But 
even  if  such  declarations  are  resolved  into  the  utter- 
ances of  acute  foresight,  it  is  not  so  easy  to  account 
for  or  to  assign  any  meaning  to  his  assertion,  any 
time  during  the  age  of  Hezekiah,  that  the  first  or 
ioYmer  dominion  shoidd  come  to  the  toiver  of  Edar,^ 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem,  and  the  king- 
dom to  the  daugliter  of  Jeruscdem.  Still  less  intel- 
ligible is  the  statement,  They  shall  smite  the  judge  oj 
Israel  luith  a  rod  upon  the  cheek  ;*  and  his  yet  more 
distinct  and  reiterated  assertion  that  out  of  Bethle- 
hem Ephratah  should  come  forth  he  that  ivas  to  be 

1  Micah  iii.  12.  -  iv.  8.  3  ^y   g^  4  y_  i^ 


lect.  IV.  Pi'ophecy.  143 

ruler  in  Israel,  whose  goings  forth  had  heenfroon  of 
old,  from  the  days  of  eternity}  Bearing  in  mind 
tliat  this  prophet  had  inherited  a  considerable  mass 
of  oracuhir  and  prophetic  utterances,  it  becomes 
impossible  to  dissociate  his  own  enunciations  from 
them,  or  to  suppose  that  he  had  no  designed  refer- 
ence to  them.  If  the  throne  of  David  was  to  be 
rebuilt  after  the  promise  of  Amos,  who  preceded 
Micah,  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  the  kingdom  and 
the  first  dominion  of  him  that  was  to  be  ruler  in 
Israel  was  not  a  repetition  of  the  same  idea,  an 
expression  running  in  the  same  channel  and  in  the 
same  direction.  The  prophets,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
appear  to  have  been  possessed,  one  and  all,  with  a 
similar  conception,  to  which  they  gave  utterance, 
each  in  his  own  way,  but  independently,  and  yet  in 
such  a  manner  that  the  several  elements  are  suscep- 
tible eventually  of  the  most  successful  and  signifi- 
cant combination.  This  may  be  accident,  and  indeed 
its  whole  value  consists  in  its  not  being  the  result 
of  conscious  design  on  the  part  of  the  writers,  which 
it  cannot  be  ;  but  if  the  final  and  complete  efi'ect  is 
accidental,  it  is  hard  to  say  what  indications  of  the 
working  of  a  conscious  moral  will  would  be  sufficient 
to  prove  design.  At  all  events  there  is  evidence  in 
Micah  that  he  looked  for  a  coming  ruler  in  Israel  at 
a  time  when  actually  no  such  ruler  was  wanted, 
inasmuch  as  Hezekiah  was  then  sitting  on  the  throne 

1  Micah  V.  2. 


1 44  TJlc  Christ  of  Lect.  iv. 

of  David,  and  not  without  honour  and  renown  that 
were  worthy  of  his  ancestral  line. 

And  it  is  certain  that  in  this  prophet  we  have 
one  or  two  new  and  original  characteristics  added 
to  those  already  existing  of  the  person  who  is  the 
object  of  anticipation.  He  is  called  distinctly  the 
ruler  and  judge  of  Israel.  He  is  to  be  smitten  on 
the  cheek  with  a  rod,  which  implies  apparently  some 
rejection  of  his  claim.  He  is  to  be  a  person  of  so 
much  dignity  as  to  ennoble  and  glorify  his  birth- 
place, which  is  identified  with  Bethlehem,  a  town 
already  famous  alike  in  the  annals  of  David  and  of 
Jacob  ;  ^  and  lastly,  his  goings  forth  are  declared 
most  mysteriously  to  have  been  from  of  old,  from 
the  days  of  eternity. 

Whatever  may  have  been  originally  meant  or 
understood  by  all  this,  it  is  impossible  not  to  see 
that  this  is  what  was  written  in  the  reign  of  Heze- 
kiah,  some  seven  centuries  and  more  before  the 
Christian  era.  And  if  we  take  it,  as  we  are  bound 
to  do,  in  connection  with  other  declarations  and 
promises  already  in  vogue,  some  light  is  undoubt- 
edly thrown  upon  the  meaning  intended  to  have 
been  conveyed,  and  not  improbably  understood. 
At  all  events,  the  meaning  is  susceptible  of  progres- 
sive illumination,  and  is  the  subject  of  constant  but 
gradual  development, 
obadiah.        The  shortest  of  the  minor  prophets  need  only 

Gen.  XXXV.  19. 


lfxt.  IV.  Prophecy.  145 

cletaiu  us  for  a  moment  before  passing  on  to  liim 
who  is  the  greatest  of  all.  Obadiah  concludes  his 
very  brief  "vision"  with  the  declaration,  And  the 
kingdom  shall  he  the  Lord's,  which  manifestly  shows 
that  he  looked  forward  to  the  setting  up  of  a  Divine 
kingdom  in  a  way  that  is  not  without  its  bearing 
upon  similar  and  innumerable  statements. 

Any  detailed  examination  of  the  prophet  Isaiah  Isaiah, 
becomes  impossible  here.  But  it  is  more  requisite 
to  consider  his  writings  in  a  broad  and  general  man- 
ner than  to  attempt  to  erect  an  argument  on  par- 
ticular texts.  There  are  two  allusions  to  the  throne 
of  David  in  Isaiah  which  require  notice  :  that  in  the 
ninth  chapter,  where  it  is  said  of  the  child  that  is  born 
whose  name  is  Wonderful,  that  thei^e  shall  he  no 
end  of  the  increase  of  his  goveynment  and  jjeace 
u])on  the  throne  of  David,  but  that  he  shall  order  it 
and  establish  it  for  ever ;  and  that  in  the  fifty -fifth 
chapter,  where  it  is  said,  I  loill  make  an  everlasting 
covenant  with  you,  even  the  sure  mercies  of  David. 
It  matters  not  now  in  the  slightest  degree  whether 
these  two  passages  are  by  the  same  writer,  as  I 
believe  they  are,  or  not.  If  there  was  an  interval 
of  a  century  and  a  half,  or  two  centuries,  between 
them,  the  second  is  virtually  the  endorsement  of  the 
first.  Whatever  was  meant  by  the  sure  mercies  of 
David  cannot  have  been  very  different  from  the 
hope  which  centred  in  an  occupant  of  the  throne 
of  David  who  should  order  and  estahlish  it  for  ever. 

L 


146  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  IV 


Whether  such  epithets  as  Wonderful,  Counsellor, 
Mighty  God,  Father  ofeternitii,  and  Prince  of  Peace, 
can  ever  have  been  intended  for  any  chikl  of  Ahaz, 
or  have  been  appropriated  by  him  or  his  people,  we 
must  determine  with  ourselves  ;  but,  in  the  face  of 
other  considerations  already  enumerated,  it  seems  at 
least  possible  that  they  might  have  been  otherwise 
understood,  and  at  all  events  they  do  not  stand 
alone,  but  are  parts  of  a  complex  and  elaborate 
wdiole.  If  the  second  allusion  is  Isaiah's  own,  then 
it  has  all  the  force  of  an  authentic  comment  on  the 
former  one,  and  if  it  is  not,  then  it  still  possesses  an 
independent  value  as  an  instance  of  deliberate  recur- 
rence to  the  previous  idea,  of  refusal  to  acknowledge 
any  failure  in  the  former  promise  notwithstanding 
its  extraordinary  language,  and  of  postponement  of 
its  realisation  to  the  yet  distant  and  conditional 
future. 

There  is,  however,  yet  more  manifest  proof  that 
Isaiah  looked  for  the  realisation  of  the  Davidic  pro- 
mises in  a  particular  person,  from  the  remarkable 
prophecy  which  immediately  follows  his  denuncia- 
tion of  the  Assyrian  army  in  the  tenth  chapter, 
when  he  says  that  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod^  out 
of  the  stein  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  groiu  out  of 
his  7Vots ;  and  further,  that  this  root  of  Jesse  shall 
stand  for  an  ensign  of  the  people,  that  unto  it  shall 
the  Gentiles  seek,  and  that  his  rest  sJiall  he  glory. 
It  is  simply   absurd  to  suppose  that  the  prophet 


Lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  147 

could  have  had  in  his  mind  any  existing  scion  of  the 
royal  house,  or  that  his  glowing  language,  coupled 
as  it  was  with  inappropriate  and  unintelligible  pro- 
mises about  the  recovery  of  the  remnant  of  bis 
people,  was  intended  to  be  understood  of  any  present 
or  actual  king.  The  visions  of  returning  prosperity 
to  his  afflicted  land  may  have  led  him  to  adopt 
exuberant  language,  but  that  language  became  the 
soil  in  which  a  germ  was  imbedded  that  could  find 
no  adequate  field  for  its  development  in  existing  or 
probable  circumstances.  For  nothing  less  than  the 
return  of  the  condition  of  paradise  was  associated 
w^th  the  growth  of  this  branch  out  of  the  roots  of 
Jesse.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  to  afiirm,  with  some 
show  of  truth,  that  the  glowing  visions  of  the  pro- 
phet have  never  been  fulfilled,  and  are  only  visions  ; 
but  it  is  absurd  to  say  that  their  meaning  was 
exhausted  in  any  anticipations  he  may  have  cher- 
ished of  present  or  immediate  prosperity.  We  can 
only  decide,  in  accordance  with  reason  and  common 
sense,  that  another  page  was  being  added  in  these 
mysterious  utterances  to  those  declarations  already 
in  existence  which  spoke  of  a  distant  glory  for  the 
house  of  David. 

In  further  proof  also  that  such  expressions  were 
meant  to  be  understood  of  the  indefinite  future  and 
not  of  any  actual  definite  present,  we  may  refer  to 
the  32d  and  the  35th  chapters,  the  former  of  which 
speaks  of  a  king  reigning  in   righteousness,    and 


148  The  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

describes  the  character  of  his  kingdom  in  hmguage 
that  is  singuhirly  unmeaning,  if  interpreted  of  the 
reign  of  Hezekiah.  The  anticipations  of  good,  how- 
ever, are  not  unmixed  with  forebodings  of  evil,  and 
it  is  not  until  the  Spirit  be  j^oured  from  on  high  that 
judgment  is  to  dwell  in  the  wilderness  and  righteous- 
ness to  remain  in  the  fruitful  field. 

But  nowhere  more  conspicuously  than  in  the 
35th  chapter  does  the  language  of  the  prophet,  who- 
ever he  was,  transcend  all  possible  reference  to  the 
circumstances  of  his  own  time.  It  can  only  be  in- 
terpreted of  that  day  of  the  Lord,  when  the  good 
things  promised  to  the  house  of  David  shall  have 
been  fulfilled ;  then  it  is  that  the  ransomed  of  the 
Lord  shall  return,  and  come  to  Zion  luith  songs  and 
everlasting  joy  upo7i  their  heads ;  then  it  is  that 
they  shall  obtain  joy  and  gladness,  and  sorroiv  and 
sighing  shall  flee  away. 

Nor  must  we  forget  that  if  we  are  to  discover  in 
existing  circumstances  the  full  explanation  of  the 
prophet's  language,  we  can  only  do  so  by  depriving 
him  of  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  his  ofiice, 
which  was  certainly  recognised  in  his  own  day,  as 
we  learn  from  the  testimony  of  contemporary  history. 
He  was  regarded  as  a  person  standing  in  a  special 
relation  to  God,  and  having  special  access  to  the 
knowledge  of  His  will.  This  estimate  of  his  position, 
whether  right  or  wrong,  requires  to  be  accounted 
for,  and  we  cannot  account  for  it  on  the  assumption 


Lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  149 

that  tliose  utterances  of  liis  which  we  can  see  to  be 
unintelligible  presented  no  mystery,  but  were  clear 
and  commonplace  to  the  men  of  his  own  time  ; 
because,  then,  why  should  he  have  been  reckoned  as 
a  prophet  or  as  an  exponent  of  the  will  of  God  ? 

That  the  national  estimate  of  Isaiah's  mission 
may  have  been  false  is  conceivable ;  but,  judging 
from  the  evidence  before  us  of  the  part  he  played, 
and  from  the  works  he  has  left  behind  him,  we  are  not 
in  a  position  to  aflfirm  this,  and  we  cannot  account 
for  his  prophecies  on  the  assumption  that  he  was  no 
prophet,  when  the  very  feature  of  them  which  re- 
quires to  be  explained  is  their  apparently  prophetical 
character.  It  is  impossible  not  to  see  that  the 
natural  tendency  of  his  language  must  have  been  to 
arouse  anticipations  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
which  were  certainly  not  realised  in  the  present  nor 
in  the  immediate  future,  and  which  in  fact  seemed 
to  grow  in  brilliancy  as  the  political  horizon  became 
darker. 

In  like  manner  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  the 
latter  portion  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,  no  matter  when 
it  was  written,  contributed  certain  original  elements, 
which,  taken  in  connection  with  others  already  in 
existence,  may  have  combined  to  make  the  hope  of 
deliverance  to  come  yet  more  ardent.  Here  it  is 
that  we  meet  with  the  well-known  phrase,  the  servant  The 
of  the  Lord  ?  It  is  manifest  that  the  prophet's  use  Lord 
of  this  phrase  varies.     Sometimes  it  is  distinctly 


ser- 
vant of  the 


1 50  TJie  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

applied  to  Cyrus ;  sometimes  it  is  as  evidently  a  per- 
sonification of  the  people  at  large,  as  in  xliv.  1,  Yet 
now  hear,  0  Jacob,  my  servant,  and  Israel  ivlioni  I 
have  chosen.  But  there  are  other  occasions  when 
it  is  impossible  that  either  one  or  the  other  can 
be  meant.  For  example,  the  delineation  of  the 
Lord's  servant  at  the  commencement  of  chajDter  xlii. 
can  only  with  violence  be  interpreted  of  the  nation 
at  large:  Behold  my  servant,  ivhom  I  uphold ;  mine 
elect,  in  ivhoni  my  soul  delighteth :  I  have  put  my 
Spirit  upon  him;  he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  to 
the  Gentiles.  He  shall  not  cry,  nor  lift  up,  nor 
cause  his  voice  to  be  heard  in  the  street.  A  bruised 
reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  the  smoking  flax  shall 
he  not  quench :  he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  unto 
truth.  He  shall  not  fail  nor  be  discouraged,  till  he 
have  set  judgment  m  the  earth  :  and  the  isles  shall 
ivaitfor  his  law.  Is  it  possible  to  maintain  that  if 
this  was  intended  to  be  understood  of  the  nation  at 
large,  it  was  intended  to  be  so  understood  apart  from 
that  clear  notion  of  a  successor  to  David's  throne 
already  known  to  be  in  existence?  Can  we  suppose 
that  the  anticipations  of  the  32d  chapter  were  in- 
tended to  be  severed  from  those  of  the  4 2d?  If  the 
interval  of  a  century  and  a  half  elapsed  between  the 
production  of  the  two,  is  it  probable  that  in  the 
mind  of  the  people  they  would  not  be  associated  ?  Is 
it  likely  that  the  later  writer,  granting  his  exist- 
ence,  and    granting  also,   as   we   must   grant,  his 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 5 1 

acquaintaucc  with  the  materials  already  at  hand, 
and  his  conscious  participation  in  the  same  prophetic 
office  with  those  who  had  gone  before  him,  should 
have  spoken  as  he  did,  and  given  utterance  to  a 
hope  for  his  nation  at  large  which  he  deliberately 
disconnected  from  the  long-cherished  hope  of  the 
promised  scion  of  the  house  of  David  ? 

The  known  phenomena  of  prophecy,  judging 
from  the  monuments  before  us,  forbid  the  assump- 
tion of  the  prophetic  utterances  being  thus  isolated 
and  independent;  or,  even  if  they  do  not,  the  effect 
produced  by  the  work  as  a  whole,  which  is  like  that 
of  the  perspective  in  painting,  is  such  as  to  make  it 
difficult  without  violence  to  disregard  the  a23parent 
relation  of  the  parts. 

We  are,  however,  at  all  events,  at  liberty  to 
assume  a  certain  amount  of  unity  in  the  latter  chap- 
ters of  Isaiah,  which,  for  special  reasons,  we  must 
not  presuppose  in  the  work  as  a  whole.  And  thus 
it  will  probably  not  be  denied  that  the  figure  of  the 
Lord's  servant  in  chapter  xlii.  is  resumed  in  the 
52d  and  53d  chapters.  In  the  mind  of  the  writer  The  fifty- 
it  was  one  and  the  same  image,  whatever  in  his  own  chapter, 
mind  he  may  have  understood,  or  have  intended 
others  to  understand  by  it.  Let  it,  however,  be 
granted  that  the  idea  in  the  prophet's  own  mind  was 
that  of  the  nation  as  the  ideal  servant  of  the  Lord. 
Then  he  has  for  the  first  time  sketched  this  ideal 
under  peculiar  aspects.     He  who  before  was  to  bring 


1 5  2  The  Christ  of  lect,  iv. 

forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles,  while  the  isles  were 
to  wait  for  his  Law,  is  now  seen  in  the  character  of 
one  who  suffers  for  the  sake  of  others,  who  is  un- 
justly afflicted  and  oppressed,  who  is  led  as  a  sheep 
to  the  slaughter,  and  whose  soul  is  made  an  offering 
for  sin ;  who,  while  he  is  numbered  with  the  trans- 
gressors, yet  bears  the  sin  of  many,  and  makes  inter- 
cession for  the  transgressors.  It  will  not  be  denied 
that  this  is  altogether  a  novel  and  original  conception. 
The  germ  of  it  may  possibly  be  found  in  some  of 
the  Psalms,  with  which  the  writer  may  have  been 
familiar,  but  nowhere  is  the  picture  so  elaborately 
drawn  and  so  highly  coloured  as  here.  It  is  not  to 
be  denied  also,  that,  whether  or  not  the  servant  of 
the  Lord  here  is  identical  with  that  in  chapter  xlii., 
it  is  in  the  strongest  possible  contrast  to  the  visions 
of  royal  glory  that  were  supposed  to  be  reserved  for 
the  house  of  David.  The  picture  is  altogether  of 
another  kind  ;  and  yet  it  is  said  of  this  man,  with  a 
strange  combination  of  images,  that  he  shall  see  his 
seed  and  shall  prolong  his  days,  and  that  the  pleasure 
of  the  Lord  shall  prosper  in  his  hand.  So  that,  as 
the  line  of  David  was  to  have  long  life  and  a  num- 
erous posterity,^  and  to  accomplish  the  purposes  of 
God,  so  was  it  also  with  this  servant  of  the  Lord. 
It  cannot  also  be  maintained  that  such  a  portrait  as 
this  was  sketched  from  the  life  :  there  was  no  one 
in  the  nation  or  among  the  prophets  who  may  have 

^  Psalm  Ixxxix.  36. 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  153 

sat  for  it.  For  if  so,  it  is  very  singular  that  all 
memory  of  him  should  have  passed  away.  The  pic- 
ture, marvellous  as  it  is  as  a  work  of  art,  is  evidently 
an  ideal  conception,  and  as  such  was  an  entirely  new 
contribution  to  the  gallery  of  ideals  already  in  exist- 
ence, which  took  its  place  by  their  side,  and  would 
eventually  establish  its  relation  to  them,  or  be  re- 
jected as  an  incongruous  and  irrelevant  addition. 

No  sooner,  however,  has  the  prophet  sketched 
the  portrait  of  the  Lord's  servant,  and  drawn  that 
picture  of  his  ideal  sorrow,  which  is  unique  in 
Scripture,  than  he  bursts  forth  with  the  expression 
of  triumphant  joy,  and  declares  that  the  barren 
woman  shall  become  fruitful  and  her  seed  inherit 
the  Grentiles.  Indeed,  it  is  one  of  the  most  remark- 
able characteristics  of  this  writer  that  he  distinctly 
declares  an  unlimited  field  for  the  mission  of  Israel. 
It  is  a  light  thing  that  thou  shouldest  he  my  servant 
to  raise  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  and  to  restore  the 
preserved  of  Israel;  I  ivill  also  give  thee  for  a  light 
to  the  Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation 
unto  the  end  of  the  earth}  And  the  Gentiles  shall 
come  to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy 
rising/'  I  am  sought  of  them  that  asked  not  for 
me,  and  I  am  found  of  them  that  sought  me  not.  I 
said,  Behold  me,  behold  me,  unto  a  nation  that  was 
not  called  by  my  name.^  Such  language  as  this  is 
expressive  of  some  hope  and  of  some  conviction  in 

1  Is.  xlk.  6.  ""  Ix.  3.  ^  Ixv.  1. 


1 54  The  Christ  of  Lect.  iv. 

tlie  mind  of  the  writer.  What  does  it  mean  ?  We 
can  only  take  it  in  connection  with  other  hopes  he  has 
himself  expressed  for  the  house  of  David ;  in  fact 
any  hopes  for  the  nation  would,  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet,  have  centred  in  hopes  for  the  national 
throne.  However  great  the  humiliation  of  the  ser- 
vant of  the  Lord,  it  is  to  be  succeeded  and  surpassed 
by  his  exaltation  and  glory,  whether  that  servant  is 
the  nation  at  large,  or  the  prophet  himself,  or  an 
ideal  personage  but  dimly  discerned  in  vision. 

And  thus  far  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
writings  of  this  prophet,  whenever  they  were  pro- 
duced, contributed  greatly  to  the  development  of 
ideas  existent  already  in  germ  ;  and  that  while  they 
by  no  means  repudiated  the  ancient  expectations 
that  had  been  cherished  for  the  house  of  David, 
they  originated  a  far  more  spiritual  conception  of  the 
ideal  servant  of  the  Lord,  who,  after  being  chastened 
and  afflicted  as  an  offering  for  the  sin  of  others,  was 
to  be  exalted  to  universal  and  world-wide  dominion. 
The  proof  of  this  is  in  every  one's  hands ;  it  is  patent 
and  undeniable,  and  alike  independent  of  questions 
arising  from  critical  interpretation,  from  the  date  of 
composition,  and  from  uncertainty  of  authorship. 
Can  the  phenomena  presented  be  accounted  for 
naturally  ?  Do  they  exhibit  the  natural  and  obvious 
development  of  one  idea  ?  Is  the  servant  of  the 
Lord  in  Isaiah  the  natural  product  of  the  son  of 
David  in  the  Psalms  ?     Admitting  that  the  form 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 5  5 

assumed  by  the  one  was  purely  natural,  was  the 
later  form  it  took  in  the  other  such  as  might  have 
been  expected  ?  Is  there  anything  analogous  to  this 
gradual  development  of  one  ideal  in  classical  or  in 
any  other  literature  ?  Is  it  not  peculiar  to  and 
unique  in  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament  ? 
And,  even  if  the  essential  unity  of  the  several  ideas 
be  called  in  question,  their  essential  and  distinctive 
character  is  not  to  be  denied.  We  may  still  deal 
with  them  as  separate  elements,  and  note  their 
historic  rise  at  different  epochs  of  the  national  his- 
tory ;  the  patriarchal  idea  in  patriarchal  times  ;  the 
royal  idea  when  the  crown  was  brightest  and  most 
glorious  ;  the  idea  of  a  universal  lawgiver  when  the 
mind  of  the  prophet  was  fixed  on  the  nation's  return 
to  the  free  exercise  of  its  ancestral  laws  ;  but  it  will,  * 
after  all,  be  the  possible  consistency  of  these  various 
thoughts,  their  possible  relation  to  one  another,  and 
their  mutual  completeness,  that  we  shall  have  to 
account  for ;  and  in  endeavouring  to  account  for  this 
it  will  not  be  easy  to  exclude  the  possibility  of 
design,  when  it  is  obvious  that  the  actual  result 
produced  is  precisely  that  which  design  alone  would 
account  for. 

The   peculiar  position  of   the  ancient  prophet  Jeremiah, 
receives  a  distinct  and  vivid  illustration  from  the 
personal  history  of  Jeremiah.     We  see  very  plainly 
his  extreme  reluctance   to  undertake  his  office,  the 
sense  of  deep  responsibility  under  which  he  laboured, 


15^  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  IV. 


tlie  conviction  from  wliicli  he  was  unable  to  escape, 
that  the  work  he  had  to  do  was  imposed  by  God. 
He  would  fain  have  held  his  peace,  but  the  word  of 
the  Lord  was  unto  him  as  a  hurning  fire  shut  up  in 
his  hones,  and  he  was  wearij  ivith  forbearing  and 
could  not  stay}  This  sense  of  an  imperative  and 
inevitable  mission,  extraordinary  as  it  was,  which 
characterised  the  ancient  prophets,  must  be  allowed 
to  lend  considerable  weight  to  what  they  say.  Their 
sincerity  was  unimpeachable,  notwithstanding  the 
extravagance  of  their  assumptions.  People,  and 
priest,  and  king,  moreover,  alike  acknowledged  their 
authority,  even  though  they  might  combine  in  per- 
secuting them. 

There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  time  that  Jeremiah 
prophesied,  neither  is  there  any  doubt  that  he  dis- 
tinctly assigned  the  duration  of  seventy  years  to  the 
captivity  at  Babylon.  The  computation  of  this 
period  may  be  a  matter  of  dispute ;  as  to  the  fact 
that  it  was  foretold  there  can  be  none.^  It  is  also 
certain  that,  living  as  he  did  at  the  close  of  the 
Jewish  monarchy,  he  spoke  of  a  righteous  branch 
being  raised  unto  David,  and  of  a  king  ivho  shoidd 
reign  and  jprosper  ;^  while  he  joined  with  that  pro- 
mise the  assurance  that  Israel  should  be  brought 
back  out  of  the  north  country.  Judging  from  what 
Jeremiah  has  himself  told  us  of  Zedekiah,*  it  is  not 

^  Jer.  XX.  9.  -  Ezra  i.  ;  Dan.  ix.  2.  ^  Jer.  xxiii.  5-8. 

•^  xxxvii.  2  si'ci.,  and  lii.  2. 


Prophecy.  157 


probable  that  he  should  have  had  him  in  his  mind 
when  he  wrote  thus,  though  it  is  possible  that  his 
name  may  have  suggested  the  words  :  The  Lord  our 
righteousness.  But,  anyhow,  we  see  here  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  familiar  thought  of  a  king  being  born  to 
David.  If  we  might  assume  that  the  writings  of 
Isaiah,  as  we  now  have  them,  were  in  existence,  then 
we  could  say  without  hesitation  that  the  language  of 
Isaiah  is  borrowed,  and  the  promise  he  had  given 
renewed  ;  but,  at  all  events,  we  have  here  from  an 
independent  hand  a  repetition,  whether  earlier  or 
later,  of  the  old  idea. 

And  it  is  impossible  not  to  say  that  the  expecta- 
tion of  future  good  for  Israel  is  expressly  associated 
with  that  of  the  king  who  is  to  be  born  to  David. 
The  restoration  of  Israel  is  to  take  place  in  his 
days,  and  Judah  and  Israel  are  again  to  be  one,  for 
we  must  not  forget  that  at  tliis  time  Israel  had  no 

o 

national  existence.  Now,  the  interpretation  of  this 
language  may  be  a  very  difficult  and  doubtful  matter, 
but  as  to  its  literal  meaning  there  can  be  no  doubt. 
This  is  what  the  prophet  said,  whatever  his  words 
meant.  And,  perhaps,  the  clearest  and  most  ex- 
plicit promise  that  yet  existed  in  relation  to  the 
expected  heir  of  David,  was  thus  added  to  all  that 
had  gone  before.  Psalms  like  the  72d,  the  89th, 
the  132d,  and  others,  received  a  new  meaning 
when  language  such  as  this  was  uttered  by  a  man 
in  the  position  of  Jeremiah,  who  claimed  and  was 


158  The  Christ  of  Lect.  iv. 

acknowledged  to  be  a  prophet  of  the  Lord.  It  is 
manifest  that  the  original  thought  was  becoming 
clearer  and  more  definite :  it  was  undero-oinsf 
development ;  it  was  a  growing  conception,  and 
each  age  and  epoch  contributed  to  its  growth,  each 
prophet  added  something  of  distinctness  to  the  ori- 
ginal idea.  And  yet,  what  the  full  idea  was  to  be 
no  single  prophet  knew,  and  no  single  age  could  tell 
what  was  or  was  not  reserved  for  its  own  epoch  to 
produce.  The  fulness  of  time  alone  could  show 
whether  the  aggregate  was  complete,  or  whether 
more  was  still  waiting  to  be  added. 

This  promise  also  is  the  more  remarkable  from 
the  fact  that  it  presents  a  strong  contrast  to  the 
other  prophecies  of  Jeremiah,  and  from  the  circum- 
stance of  its  being  reiterated  and  expanded  by 
him,  subsequently,  when  he  was  shut  up  in  the 
court  of  the  prison.^  His  prophecies  generally  have 
more  of  a  domestic  and  local  character,  and  are 
concerned  rather  with  the  immediate  destiny  of  his 
people ;  but  here  he  takes  a  much  wider  range,  and 
looks  forward  to  the  remotest  future,  and  declares 
that  the  covenant  with  day  and  night  shall  be 
broken  l^efore  David  shall  want  a  son  to  reign  upon 
his  throne.  And  yet  this  is  in  immediate  connec- 
tion with  the  promise  of  the  branch  of  righteous- 
ness that  is  to  grow  up  unto  David,  in  whose  days 
Judah   shall  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell 

'  Chap,  xxxiii.  15-26. 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  159 

safely.  That  is  to  say,  at  the  very  time  when  the 
throne  of  David  was  tottering  to  its  fLill,  and  its  last 
occupant  was  passing  away  into  captivity,  a  man, 
who  felt  himself  compelled  to  declare  the  message  of 
the  Lord  in  spite  of  all  inward  reluctance  and  of  all 
outward  opposition,  is  found  in  the  most  solemn 
manner  affirming  his  belief  in  the  ancient  promises, 
and  consoling  his  nation  with  the  prospect  of  their 
fulfilment,  when,  humanly  speaking,  there  was  none. 

For  the  moment,  then,  we  must  hold  our  judg- 
ment in  suspense  as  to  the  intrinsic  value  of  such 
prophecies,  and  confine  our  attention  '  to  the  un- 
doubted fact  of  their  existence  as  part  of  the  literary 
and  prophetic  inheritance  with  which  the  people 
went  into  captivity.  There  can  be  no  question 
that  at  that  time,  as  far  as  the  writings  of  the  pro- 
phets and  psalmists  had  influenced  the  nation,  it 
was  more  than  warranted  in  expecting  a  restoration 
of  the  throne  of  David  in  the  person  of  some  one 
who  should  unite  in  himself  the  various  character- 
istics that  had  been  assigned  to  his  ideal  represent- 
ative and  heir.  And  with  this  expectation  rife 
among  the  people,  the  monarchy  collapsed,  and  the 
nation  was  carried  captive  to  Babylon. 

We  pass  on   now  to  the  prophets  of  the  return,  Haggai. 
beginning   with    Haggai,  in    the    second    year    of 
Darius,  or  about  fifteen  years  after  the  foundation 
of  the  second  temple.     With  the  circumstances  of 
that  foundation  we  are  familiar,  from  the  touchino: 


1 60  TJic  CJmst  of  lect.  IV. 

narrative  in  the  second  chapter  of  Ezra,  which  is 
illustrated  and  confirmed  by  the  words  of  Haggai : 
Who  is  left  among  you  that  saw  this  house  in  he?' 
first  glo7'y  f  sixty-eight  years  before ;  and  how  do 
ye  see  it  noio  f  is  it  not  in  your  eyes  in  comparison 
of  it  as  nothing  ? 

And  this  comparative  inferiority  of  the  second 
temple  was  made  the  basis  of  a  very  striking 
promise,  that  the  glory  of  the  latter  house  should 
he  greater  than  the  glory  of  the  former,  and  that  in 
it  the  Lord  would  give  peace.  We  may  omit  alto- 
gether the  disputed  words  about  the  desire  of  all 
nations  coming,  because,  as  it  happens,  they  in  no 
way  affect  the  material  sense,  however  much  to 
understand  them  of  a  person,  rather  than  of 
material  wealth  may  heighten  it ;  for  here  is  the 
distinct  assertion  that  the  second  house  shall  sur- 
pass the  former  one  in  glory,  and  that  apparently 
because  peace  shall  be  given  in  it.  Two  points, 
however,  must  be  borne  in  mind — first  that  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  which  was  the  special  glory  of  the 
first  temple,  did  not  exist  in  the  second,  and  conse- 
quently the  declaration  of  the  prophet  was  the 
more  daring ;  and  secondly,  that,  daring  as  it  was, 
he  confirmed  it  in  the  most  solemn  manner  possible, 
on  his  faith  as  a  prophet,  by  the  five-times-reiterated 
declaration,  TMis  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts.  It  can- 
not be  doubted,  therefore,  that  this  statement  was 
made  as  a  substantive  addition  to  the  prophetic  ele- 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  i6i 

ments  already  iu  existence,  and  would  be  so  regarded 
by  the  people  who  recognised  the  mission  of  Haggai. 

About  the  same  time  arose  another  prophet,  Zechariah. 
Zechariah,  who  likewise  took  part  in  encouraging 
the  work  of  Zerubbabel  in  building  the  second 
temple.  He  maintained  and  illustrated  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  prophetic  succession  after  the  cap- 
tivity, by  reviving  in  his  prophecies  two  of  the 
most  prominent  images  in  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah. 
For  more  than  two  generations  Jeremiah's  promise 
of  the  coming  Branch  had  lain  in  abeyance,  with 
no  apparent  hope  of  fulfilment.  And,  under  any 
view  of  Isaiah's  epoch,  his  famous  prophecies  and 
portrait  of  the  servant  of  the  Loi^d  must  have  been 
in  existence  now,  and  were  beyond  all  doubt 
familiar  to  Zechariah.  With  these  materials,  then, 
ready  to  hand,  he  represents  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
saying  to  Joshua  the  high  priest.  Thus  saith  the 
Lord  of  Hosts,  Behold  I  vnll  bring  forth  (literally, 
Behold  me  bringing  in)  my  servant  the  Branch ;  ^ 
and  describing  the  era  of  his  advent  as  a  time  of 
ideal  peace  and  prosperity.  This  promise,  Avhicli  is 
first  given,  or  apparently  given  by  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord,  is  subsequently  repeated  by  the  prophet  him- 
self to  Joshua  the  high  priest,  in  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  with  a  slight  variation  : — Thus  speaketh  the 
Lord  of  hosts,  saying.  Behold  the  man  whose  name 
is  the  Branch  :  and  he  shall  grow  up  out   of  his 

'  Zech.  iii.  8. 
M 


1 6  2  The  Christ  of  Lect.  i v. 

'place,  and  lie  shall  build  the  temple  of  the  Lord, 
which  was  now  nearly  finished  :  Even  he  shall 
build  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  and  lie  shall  bear  the 
glorij,  and  shall  sit  and  rule  upon  his  throne ;  and 
he  shall  be  a  priest  upon  his  throne,  and  the  counsel 
of  2^ecice  shall  be  betiveen  them  both ;  ^  that  is,  ap- 
parently, between  the  priest  and  the  king,  which 
twofold  ofiice  this  man  whose  name  is  the  Branch 
is  to  unite  and  fulfil  in  his  own  person.  It  is 
hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  such  words  were 
spoken  and  recorded  not  only  with  full  knowledge 
of,  but  with  intentional  reference  to,  what  had  been 
said  before  by  Jeremiah,  by  Isaiah,  and  perhaps  by 
David  in  the  1 1  Otli  Psalm.  Even  if  there  was  no 
conscious  and  designed  allusion  to  their  statements, 
which  we  cannot  prove,  the  mere  fact  of  the  re- 
markable manner  in  which  the  several  utterances  fit 
into  and  sustain  each  other,  is  a  phenomenon  not 
a  little  extraordinary,  and  one  which  may  be  in 
a  high  degree  siojnificant. 

o  o  O 

The  independent  character  also  of  Zechariah's 
prophecy  is  seen  in  this,  that  whereas  the  last 
words  of  Haggai  were  addressed  to  Zerubbabel,  and 
were  fraught  with  a  blessing  for  him  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  the  house  of  Judah,  Zechariah's 
promise  of  the  Branch  was  twice  given  to  Joshua 
the  high  priest,  and  the  first  time  was  coupled  witli 
a  personal  promise  to  him.     This   cu'cumstance  is 

'  Zech.  vi.  12,  1.3. 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  163 

perhaps  sufficient  to  show  that  the  central  promise 
in  either  case  was  intended  to  be  kept  distinct  from 
the  particular  person  to  whom  it  was  immediately 
given.  Both  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  must  neces- 
sarily have  had  their  thoughts  directed  to  some  one 
else.  Neither  could  have  supposed  that  the  prophet's 
language  ended  in  himself,  or  that  the  personal  bless- 
ings announced  were  all  that  was  declared. 

The  critical  questions  connected  with  the  last  Zechanah 
six  chapters  of  Zechariah  are  so  intricate  that  they 
need  not  detain  us  here.  Suffice  it  to  say,  that  in 
these  chapters,  whenever  they  were  written,  there  are 
three  remarkable  passages  which  must  not  altogether 
be  passed  by.  The  first  is — Rejoice  greatly,  0 
daughter  of  Zion ;  shout,  0  daughter  of  Jeru- 
salem :  behold,  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee :  he  is 
just,  and  havimg  salvation ;  lowly,  and  riding  upon 

an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt  the  foal  of  an  ass 

And  he  shall  speak  peace  unto  the  heathen;  and 
his  dominion  shall  he  from  sea  even  to  sea,  and 
from  the  river  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth}  If 
this  was  post-captivity,  there  was  still  a  recurrence 
in  it  to  the  favourite  idea  of  the  universal  kingdom, 
with  an  evident  allusion  to  the  7  2d  Psalm ;  ^  if  it 
was  earlier  than  the  captivity,  then  it  is  impossible 
to  refer  it  with  propriety  to  any  actual  king ; 
besides,  the  time  of  his  dominion  is  to  be  coeval 
with   the  cessation  of  the  chariot  from  Ephraim, 

1  Zecli.  ix.  9,  10.  -  Ps.  Ixxii.  8,  12,  etc. 


1 64  The  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

and  of  tlie  horse  and  tlie  battle-bow  from  Jerusalem; 
in  otlier  words,  the  national  power  shall  have 
ceased  at  the  time  when  the  rule  of  the  national 
king,  who  is  spoken  of,  commences. 

The  next  passage  is  in  the  twelfth  chapter  : 
And  I  urill  pour  wpon  tlie  house  of  David,  and 
upon  the  inhahitants  of  Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of 
grace  and  of  sujplicatioris ;  and  they  shall  look 
upon  me  ivhom  thei/  have  j^ierced ;  and  they  sliall 
mourn  for  him,  as  one  mourneth  for  his  only  son, 
and  shall  he  in  bitterness  for  him,  as  one  that  is  in 
hitterness  for  his  first-born}  It  is  impossible  that 
the  person  here  spoken  of  can  have  been  the  pro- 
phet himself,  because  he  was  unable  to  pour  upon 
the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of 
Jerusalem,  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications, 
an  essentially  Divine  gift.  The  words,  therefore, 
as  they  stand,  if  thus  understood,  appear  to  have 
no  discoverable  meaning. 

And  hardly  less  mysterious  in  any  aspect  are 
those  other  words  in  the  thirteenth  chapter  :  Awake, 
0  sword,  against  my  shepherd,  and  against  the 
man  that  is  my  felloui,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts : 
smite  the  shepherd,  and  the  sheep  shall  be  scat- 
tered: and  I  will  turn  mine  hand  upon  the  little 
ones}  If  this  was  post-captivity,  there  was  mani- 
festly no  one  to  whom  it  could  refer ;  but  it  is  no 
less  difficult  to  determine  to  whom  such  language 

1  Zfcli.  xii.  10.  '-'  xiii.  7. 


Lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  165 

is  likely  to  have  been  applied  by  any  earlier  writer. 
There  is  no  instance  of  tlie  rare  expression,  tlic 
man  that  is  my  felloiv,  being  used  of  the  reigning 
monarch  ;  and  even  if  it  was  so  used  here,  we  know 
not  who  he  could  have  been,  for  there  is  no  one 
whose  history  at  all  corresponds. 

But  whether  these  three  passages  are  by  one 
and  the  same  writer  or  not,  it  is  clear  that  they  all 
purport  to  be  spoken  prophetically  and  in  the  name 
of  God.  They  are  therefore  but  integral  elements 
in  the  whole  mass  of  similar  statements.  They 
reproduce  familiar  ideas  ;  that,  namely,  of  dominion 
and  glory  in  the  person  of  a  king,  and  that  of 
exceptional  suffering. 

Whether  we  are  right  also  in  grouping  these 
and  similar  statements  together,  it  is  certain  that 
there  are  special  characteristics  common  to  all ;  for 
example,  a  peculiar  obstinacy  in  not  being  readily 
intelligible  of  ordinary  known  circumstances,  and  a 
certain  facility  of  cohesion,  which  is  the  more 
remarkable,  inasmuch  as  they  are  confessedly  the 
production  of  various  writers  and  of  various  periods. 

Looking,  then,  at  the  writings  of  the  prophets 
as  a  whole,  there  appear  to  be  one,  or  at  the  most 
two,  principal  ideas,  which  gradually  become  more 
distinct  and  definite,  until  the  conclusion  is  inevi- 
table that  the  national  literature  of  the  Jewish 
people  contained  clearly-expressed  anticipations  of 
one  who  should  arise  in  the  house  of  David  and 


1 66  The  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

restore  his  throne  to  more  than  its  pristine  glory, 
although  these  anticipations  were  at  times  per- 
plexed and  interwoven  with  others  of  a  permanent 
priesthood,  whether  or  not  combined  in  the  same 
person,  and  with  obscure  intimations  of  sufF( 


eriufr 


degradation,  and  death,  which  were  to  be  under- 
gone. The  glory,  perhaps,  predominates  over  the 
suffering,  but  of  the  presence  of  the  suffering  as  an 
element  contemplated  there  can  be  no  question ; 
the  only  question  at  the  time  even  could  have  been 
whether  the  suffering  was  an  antecedent  condition 
of  the  glory  or  a  totally  distinct  conception. 
Maiachi.  There  is,  however,  this  feature  to  be  observed  in 
the  latter  prophecies  of  Zechariah,  which  is  more 
consistent,  perhaps,  with  the  supposition  of  a  later 
date  for  their  origin,  that  the  subject  spoken  of  is 
found  to  blend  with  the  person  of  the  Divine  being ; 
and  this  also  is  characteristic  of  the  latest  of  the 
prophetic  utterances — that,  namely,  in  the  book 
of  Maiachi.  The  writer  there  says,  speaking  in  the 
name  of  God  :  Behold,  I  ivill  send  my  messenger,  and 
he  shall  iwepare  the  way  before  me :  and  the  Lord, 
whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even 
the  "messenger  of  the  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in  : 
Behold,  he  shall  come,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts} 

We  must  remember  that  this  passage  un- 
doubtedly comes  after  the  entire  bulk  of  pro- 
phetic enunciations  that  we  have  been  considering 

1  Mai.  iii.  1. 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  167 

was  in  existence.  The  second  temple  was  built ; 
Haggai's  promise  concerning  it  had  been  given ; 
Malachi  was  no  doubt  familiar  with  it  and  with 
all  the  recorded  sayings  of  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  Zecha- 
riah,  David,  and  the  rest.-  Speaking,  then,  late  in 
time  as  he  did,  Malachi  said :  T]ig  Lord,  whom  ye 
seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple.  The  ex- 
pected advent  of  a  glorious  king  is  in  abeyance.  It  is 
now  the  I^ord  himself  who  is  to  come  to  His  temple, 
and  fulfil  the  former  promise  of  giving  peace  in  it. 
He  is  to  come  as  a  judge.  If  He  is  not  to  come  as 
a  priest,  He  is  at  any  rate  to  purify  the  sons  of  Levi, 
and  purge  them  as  gold  and  silver,  that  they  may 
offer  uDto  the  Lord  an  offering  in  righteousness. 

If  the  earlier  prophetic  notion  of  a  great  king 
is  foreign  to  the  writings  of  Malachi,  we  cannot  say 
that  his  conception  of  the  future  glory  is  in  any 
sense  inferior  to  that;  on  the  contrary,  it  seems 
even  to  surpass  it ;  for  the  person  who  is  to  come 
is  called  the  Lord,^  and  the  place  whither  He  is  to 
come  is  called  His  temple.  He  is  also  apparently 
identified  with  the  messenger  of  the  covenant,  a 
phrase  which  most  probably  contains  an  allusion  to 
the  Angel  of  His  presence  mentioned  in  Isaiah,^  who 
is  represented  as  having  interposed  on  behalf  of  the 
nation  at  various  critical  periods  of  their  history. 

AVe  seem,  therefore,  to  be  justified  in  saying 
that  in  the  time  of  Malachi  the  national  hope,  so 
'  in^n.  -  Is.  ixiii.  9. 


Daniel. 


1 68  TJic  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

far  as  lie  expressed  it,  had  become  more  elevated 
and  spiritualised.  The  earthly  metaphors  were 
dropped ;  temporal  power  and  rule  were  forgotten. 
The  Lord  Himself  was  a  great  king,  whose  name 
was  dreadful  among  the  heathen  :  the  Lord  Himself 
was  the  hope  of  His  people,  and  to  those  who  feared 
His  name  the  sun  of  riohteousncss  would  arise  with 

o 

healing  in  his  wings.  If  this  is  so,  the  former 
words.  They  shall  look  on  me  ivhom  they  pierced, 
acquire  a  fresh  significance,  to  say  nothing  of  those 
others,  AwaJce,  0  sivord,  against  my  shepherd,  and 
against  the  man  that  is  my  fellow,  saith  the  Lord 
of  hosts.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  intention 
of  the  several  writers,  the  combined  phenomena 
presented  by  their  writings  cannot  fail  to  strike  us 
as  very  remarkable ;  and  it  is  scarcely  possible  to 
imagine  that  Malachi,  the  latest  writer  of  all,  was 
not  conditioned  by  what  had  gone  before,  and  is 
not  to  be  understood  accordingly. 

There  remains,  however,  yet  one  collection  of 
writings  which  must  be  noticed,  because,  whatever 
its  date,  it  throws  considerable  light  upon  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  rest,  and  this  is  the  book  of  Daniel. 
Starting  with  the  assumption  that  this  book  may 
be  as  late  as  the  second  century  before  Christ,  we 
are  yet  led  by  it  to  certain  conclusions  with  respect 
to  other  prophetic  writings  that  it  is  difficult  to  set 
aside.  For  example,  it  is  certain  that  in  Daniel  we 
meet  with  the  use  of  a  particular  term  which  can- 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 69 

not  be  ambiguous  any  longer.  In  the  second  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  then,  at  the  Latest,  a  writer  coukl 
be  understood  who  spoke  of  Prince  Messiah,  and  of 
Messiah  being  cut  off.^  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that 
by  this  time  the  conception  of  a  person  who  should 
fulfil  in  himself  the  several  conditions  going  to 
make  up  whatever  was  meant  by  Messiah  was  fully 
developed,  or  else  that  he  originated  its  full  de- 
velopment. This  latter  alternative,  however,  is  not 
likely.  The  writer,  no  doubt,  appealed  to  a  con- 
dition of  thought  already  existing.  In  his  time  the 
conception  of  a  Messiah  was  fully  formed,  and  any 
allusion  to  it  was  intelligible.  But  how  could  this 
be,  were  it  not  for  the  materials  out  of  which  such 
a  conception  could  alone  be  formed  already  existing 
in  the  national  literature  ?  The  term  Messiah  was 
one  which  had  been  applied  to  kings,  prophets,  and 
priests,  in  former  times ;  but  here  we  find  an  entirely 
difierent  use  of  it,  as  it  was  applied  to  an  ideal 
person  whose  advent  is  yet  future.  This  person  is 
himself  pre-eminently  Messiah  :  he  is  called  Prince 
Messiah.^  He  cannot  be  any  one  of  those  persons  to 
whom  the  term  has  been  applied  officially  before.  He 
must  be  one  to  whom  it  is  more  applicable  than  to  any. 
The  belief,  then,  in  the  advent  of  such  a  person 
must  have  been  mature  and  definite,  but  it  could 
only  have  been  so  because  it  had  been  fostered  and 
inculcated  by  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and  the 

^  Dan.  ix.  25,  26.  2  ^^3  H^TO 


1 70  The  Christ  of  Lect.  iv. 

national  literature.  There  must,  therefore,  have 
been  that  in  the  literature  which  was  capable  of 
fostering  it.  The  writings  of  the  prophets  must 
have  been  understood  in  such  a  way  that  they  fur- 
nished a  groundwork  for  the  support  of  the  notion. 
Tlie  matter  is  not  at  all  one  of  opinion  ;  it  is  simply 
a  matter  of  fact.  It  is  not  a  question  as  to  the  pro- 
priety of  any  such  ideas  being  derived  from  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  but  a  matter  of  fact  that 
they  were  so  derived ;  and  of  this  the  evidence  of 
the  book  of  Daniel,  whenever  that  book  was  written, 
is  conclusive. 

Nor  does  the  question  of  date  materially  affect 
the  issue,  because  here,  a  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  Christ,  is  the  evidence  that  the  prophets  were 
thus  understood.  This  was  the  long  result  of  their 
education  of  the  national  mind.  They  had  led  the 
people  up  to.  this  position.  And  it  was  not  the 
work  of  one  writer,  but  of  many.  There  is  good 
ground,  then,  for  a  strong  presumption  that  this, 
which  was  the  combined  effect  produced  by  many 
writers,  was  more  or  less  nearly  the  particular  effect 
which  they  intended  to  produce.  If,  therefore,  we 
find  one  writer  deliberately  adopting  the  language 
and  images  of  an  earlier  one,  we  can  only  infer  that 
he  did  it  with  the  intention  of  adopting  and  expand- 
ing his  meaning.  And  when  this  is  done  by  many 
writers  successively,  and  the  final  result  is  what  it 
proves  to  be,  we  can  only  conclude  that  the  result 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 7 1 

corresponded  with  the  object  which  the  writers  had 
in  view.  They  did  intend  their  language  to  pro- 
duce and  cherish  the  hope  that  a  deliverer  would 
arise  in  the  house  of  David ;  and  the  people  were 
warranted  in  investing  him  with  the  various  attri- 
butes which  the  several  writers  assigned  to  him. 
When  Daniel  spoke  of  Prince  Messiah,  he  virtually 
added  his  endorsement  to  all  that  had  been  promised 
to  the  throne  of  David,  while  he  gave  also  an  un- 
mistakable proof  of  the  manner  in  which  he  had 
received  and  understood  those  promises. 

The  book  of  Daniel,  then,  on  any  supposition  of 
its  date  and  authorship,  is  a  witness  to  the  historic 
development  of  the  Messianic  conception.  In  the 
second  century  before  Christ  we  find  the  notion  of 
Messiah  as  a  coming  Prince  accepted  and  in  vogue. 
How  much  earlier  it  may  have  been,  we  are  unable 
to  say,  but  here  at  any  rate  it  was  then.  But,  in 
point  of  fact,  a  popular  notion  such  as  this  can  only 
have  been  of  gradual  and  protracted  growth.  It 
could  not  have  started  into  existence  suddenly  ;  and 
lookmg  over  the  various  stages  of  the  national  lite- 
rature, as  they  are  indicated  with  sufficient  accuracy 
in  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms, 
we  can  trace  the  different  stages  of  its  growth.  We 
can  see  how  stone  by  stone  was  added  by  one 
writer  after  another,  till  the  edifice  assumed  the 
definite  shape  and  outline  which  are  conspicuous  in 
the  writings  of  Daniel. 


Conclu- 
sion. 


1 72  The  Christ  of  lect.  iv. 

Of  course  if  we  decide,  as  we  very  reasonably 
may,  upon  tlie  genuineness  of  tliat  book,  then  tlie 
considerations  already  mentioned  receive  additional 
weight.  Then  the  writings  of  Zechariah  and  Mala- 
chi  must  have  been  produced  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  and  must  be  interpreted 
accordingly  ;  but  as  all  these  writings  were  unques- 
tionably in  existence  in  their  present  form  in  the 
second  century  before  Christ,  that  is  more  than 
enough  for  our  purpose,  inasmuch  as  we  know  that 
then  the  actual  historic  result  produced  by  the  vari- 
ous characteristics  of  the  prophetical  writings  was 
the  anticipation  in  the  national  mind  of  a  person  to 
come  who  could  be  spoken  of  intelligibly  as  Messiah 
the  Prince.  It  matters  not  whether  all  the  notions 
connected  with  that  idea  were  in  strict  accord  and 
harmony  ;  they  cannot  have  been.  The  conceptions 
may  have  been  conflicting  and  contradictory ;  they 
could  scarcely  be  otherwise,  if  the  elements  that 
gave  rise  to  them  were  realities  manifesting  an  his- 
torical growth,  and  assignable  to  different  epochs 
and  to  various  minds. 

To  sum  up,  then,  what  has  hitherto  been  said. — 
We  have  treated  the  existing  literature,  and  the 
several  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  we  should 
treat  any  other  literary  documents.  We  have  en- 
deavoured to  estimate  them  only  as  an  honest 
examination  of  the  features  they  present  obliges  us 
to  estimate  them.      We  have  assumed   nothing  in 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 73 

their  favour.  AVe  have  conceded  hypothetically 
almost  every,  if  not  every,  position  that  has  been 
debated,  wliich  might  tend  to  modify  the  conclusion 
to  be  arrived  at.  And  what  is  the  result  ?  It  is 
this :  that  at  least  in  the  second  century  before 
Christ,  and  most  probably  in  the  sixth,  the  concep- 
tion of  a  Messiah  had  attained  so  much  consistency 
and  solidity  among  the  Jewish  nation,  that  we  find 
in  writings  of  one  period  or  the  other,  and  for  argu- 
ment's sake  it  matters  not  which,  a  usao-e  of  the 
word  which  can  only  be  understood  of  an  ideal  and 
a  future  person.  Such  an  application  of  the  term 
is  conclusive  proof  of  the  popular  existence  of  the 
notion.  We  are  not  concerned  now  with  the  cha- 
racter of  the  notion,  or  the  form  it  had  assumed. 
Here  it  was  in  actual  and  living  reality.  It  was  a 
thing  which  had  found  expression  in  a  word.  It 
was  a  thought  which  had  become  crystallised  and 
formulated  in  speech.  What  was  the  origin  of  that 
thought  ?  Taking  the  book  of  Daniel  hypothetically, 
as  the  latest  expression  of  it,  we  find  it  present  to 
the  national  mind  at  a  time  of  great  national  de- 
basement. But  it  is  far  more  probable  that  it  had 
already  been  in  existence  for  centuries.  If  it  was 
not  originally  derived  from  the  literature,  we  have 
no  other  means  of  tracing  its  origin  but  from  the 
phenomena  presented  by  the  literature  ;  and  there 
we  can  see,  from  time  to  time,  germs  of  the  same 
thought  bursting  through  the  soil  of  surrounding 


I  74  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  IV. 


incident.  From  time  to  time  the  language  used  is 
such  as  to  be  more  naturally  explained  with  refer- 
ence to  this  latent  thought  than  to  any  other  acci- 
dents of  the  age.  The  recurrence  of  this  language 
is  to  be  detected  in  the  Psalms  and  Prophets  alone 
over  a  period  of  at  least  500  years.  Writer  after 
writer  takes  it  up,  and  deals  with  it  in  his  own 
characteristic  manner.  David,  Isaiah,  Micah,  Jere- 
miah, Daniel,  Haggai,  Zechariah,  Malachi,  not  to 
mention  others,  are  all  distinguished  by  passages 
which  appear  to  have  a  common  allusion  to  this 
same  idea,  and  which,  if  they  have,  are  more  intel- 
ligible than  if  they  have  not.  In  all  these  remark- 
able passages  there  are  characteristic  features  in 
common.  There  is  a  perpetual  falling  back  upon 
the  throne  of  Judah  and  the  house  of  David  ;  and 
this  even  after  the  throne  was  at  an  end,  and  the 
family  no  longer  reigning.  No  such  feeling  is  ever 
associated  with  any  dynasty  of  Israel.  It  cannot  be 
resolved  into  mere  patriotism,  because  the  same 
onward-looking  hope  is  to  be  found  equally  when  the 
throne  is  illustrious  and  when  it  is  fallen.  It  con- 
sistently disdains  the  present,  and  is  continually 
projected  into  the  distant  future.  No  present  glory 
is  adequate;  nothing  less  than  endless  duration  and 
universal  sovereignty  is  alike  demanded  and  assured. 
No  exaggeration  of  individunl  differences  is  capable 
of  destroying  the  coml^ined  harmony.  Each  writer 
worked  independently,  but  the  combined  effect  of 


lect.  IV.  Prophecy.  1 75 

the  whole  is  unity,  or  at  lecast  the  natural  semblance 
of  consistent  unity.  Such  an  effect,  however,  was 
manifestly  beyond  the  reach  of  any  series  or  succes- 
sion of  writers,  because  the  earliest  were  ignorant 
of,  and  could  not  control,  the  utterances  of  those 
who  wrote  subsequently.  And  the  utmost  that  the 
latest  could  do  was  to  revert  to  an  earlier  thought, 
to  develop  and  expand  it.  No  reason,  however, 
can  be  assigned  for  the  correspondences,  any  more 
than  for  the  differences,  between  the  2 2d  Psalm  and 
the  53d  of  Isaiah.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that  the 
one  borrowed  from  the  other,  or  that  the  one  sug- 
gested the  conception  of  the  other.  And  yet,  looked 
at  together,  or,  if  you  will,  in  a  particular  light,  there 
is  an  incomprehensible  unity.  Are  we  to  be  de- 
barred from  pronouncing  this  unity  real  simply 
because  it  is  incomprehensible  ?  The  mere  appear- 
ance of  unity  that  undeniably  exists  cannot  be 
accounted  for  by  any  supposed  similarity  of  condition 
and  circumstances  in  the  different  writers,  added  to 
which  no  conceivable  circumstances  can  adequately 
account  for  the  language  used.  No  adequate  reason 
can  be  assigned  for  the  correspondences,  any  more 
than  for  the  differences,  between  the  21st  Psalm  and 
the  33d  of  Jeremiah.  It  is  impossible  to  say  that 
the  one  was  borrowed  from  or  suggested  the  other 
here  ;  and  yet,  after  the  lapse  of  more  than  four  cen- 
turies, there  is  a  certain  undeniable  similarity.  Was 
this  similarity,  such  as  it  is,  intentional  on  the  part 


176  The  Christ  of  Prophecy.  lect.  iv. 

of  the  later  writer  ?  Was  he  bent  u23on  producing 
the  kind  of  effect  and  unity  which,  looked  at  toge- 
ther with  other  productions,  or  in  a  particular  as- 
pect, his  own  Avork  has  produced  ?  Was  Ezekiel, 
when  drawing  his  wonderful  portrait  of  the  faithful 
Shepherd,  in  his  34th  and  37th  chapters,^  late  in  the 
times  of  the  captivity,  and  when  the  throne  of 
Judah  was  no  more,  reverting  merely  to  a  former 
thought  ?  or  was  he  not  rather  adding  important  ele- 
ments of  his  own,  the  harmony  and  essential  unity 
of  which  with  the  writings  of  other  prophets  he 
could  not  himself  perceive,  but  which,  after  the 
lapse  of  many  generations,  it  would  be  little  less 
than  wilful  blindness  to  ignore  ?  And  are  we  in 
all  these  cases  to  reject  that  one  particular  aspect  in 
which  these  independent  and  diverging  rays  are 
found  to  converge  in  a  marvellous  unity  ?  Surely, 
rather,  forasmuch  as  the  unity  was  one  which  the 
writers  confessedly  could  not  have  agreed  together 
to  produce,  while  we  can  see  for  ourselves  how 
striking  and  significant  it  is,  the  most  natural  and 
the  not  unreasonable  inference  will  be  to  confess  in 
the  lano;uao;e  of  the  Psalmist  of  old  :  Tlds  is  the 
Lord's  doing,  and  it  is  marvellous  in  our  eyes. 

^  Worthy  of  special  note  in  the  former  chapter  are  verses  23, 
24,  and  in  the  latter,  verses  24,  25,  It  is  my  servant  David  who  is 
to  reunite  the  divided  houses  of  Israel  and  Judah  :  and  my  servant 
David  shall  be  their  prince  for  ever. 


LECTURE  V. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  GOSPELS. 


®ag  (H)n^ent^um  xvav,  d)c  Goangcliftcn  imb  3lpoftel  9efd)rte'ben 
fatten.      (S&  oerlicf  etnc  ^craume  3cit,  cl;c  bcr  cvftc  von  t{)ncn  fd^rieb 
unb  etnc  fe^r  t)cti-dcl)t(icf)e,  e^c  bcr  ganjc  ^anon  ju  ®tanbe  fam. 

3^te  JRcligton  ifl  nicf^t  >iml)r,  wcil  bic  ©oangetiften  unb  Slpojicl  fie 
Ul)tter\ :  fonbern  fie  lcl;rten  fie,  wcii  fie  \vcil)x  ift. 

^ucl;  ia^,  n)a§  @ott  lel)rt,  ift  nid)t  toa^r,  weit  e§  ©ott  Iet)ren  wilt 
onbern  ©ott  (et;rt  eg,  weil  e§  wa^r  tjl. — Lcssing. 


Non  disse  Christo  al  suo  primo  convento  : 
Andate  e  predicate  al  mondo  ciance, 
Ma  diede  lor  verace  fondamento. 

Dimte. 


LECTURE    V. 

The  hook  of  the  generation  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  son  of  David,  the  son 
of  Abraham.— St  Matt.  i.  1. 

A  EAPID  survey  of  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testa-  Conclu- 
sions 
ment  has  thus  far  brought  us  to  some  important  derived 

T-T  1  •  "1  ^  from  the 

conclusions — First,  to  the  existence,  m  the  second  oid  Tes- 
century  before  our  era,  not  to  put  it  earlier,  of  the 
doctrine  or  conception  of  a  Messiah  ;  secondly,  to 
the  inference  that  that  doctrine  or  conception  was 
itself  a  kind  of  commentary  on  the  books,  inasmuch 
as  it  could  only  have  been  derived  from  them.  It 
may  therefore  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  what  they 
were  understood  to  mean  by  the  nation  who  were 
their  natural  guardians,  and  up  to  a  certain  point 
as  evidence  of  their  actual  meaning.  At  all  events, 
we  find  an  impression  rife  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  for  which  these  books  alone  can  be  held 
responsible. 

From  the   position  thus  arrived  at,  moreover,  Corollaries 

following 

certain  corollaries  follow.     If  an  effect  like  this,  therefrom. 
which  was  unique   in   history,  was  produced,  the 
cause  producing  it  must  have    been  unique  also. 
We  are  led   therefore  to  the   actual   existence   of 


1 80  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  V. 


certain  elements  in  tlie  Old  Testament  literature, 
which  are  not  to  be  accounted  for  as  we  find  them. 
If  it  had  not  been  felt  with  respect  to  these  ele- 
ments that  the  full  cause  of  their  existence  was 
not  supplied  by  the  local  and  temporary  conditions 
under  which  they  were  produced,  their  special 
effect  upon  the  nation  would  not  have  been  what 
it  was.  But,  seeing  that  this  effect  was  what  we 
know  it  to  have  been,  the  actual  existence  of  these 
elements  is  thus  far  an  evidence  of  the  special  and 
peculiar  character  of  these  books,  a  distinct  and 
unmistakeable  mark  of  their  exceptional  position  in 
literature. 

Judged  therefore  by  the  effects  of  its  teaching, 
and  by  the  phenomena  it  presents,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  itself  is  a  remarkable  literary  monument, 
possessing  characteristics  that  we  cannot  naturally 
Peculiarity  accouut  for.  Thcrc  must  have  been  causes  operat- 
Testament  iug  in  its  productiou  to  which  we  have  no  key  or 
cuptuies.  ^^^^  -^Yg  ^^j.g  compelled  to  postulate  the  existence 
of  other  forces  at  work  than  those  which  we  recog- 
nise in  the  production  of  other  and  ordinary  litera- 
ture. Even  if  in  such  writings  as  Virgil's  Pollio 
and  the  second  book  of  Plato's  Republic  we  can 
detect  traces  of  somewhat  similar  elements,  yet  the 
clearness,  the  definiteness,  and  the  extent  and  multi- 
plicity of  those  which  are  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, arc  sufficient  to  distinguish  it  very  widely 
from  the  whole  of  classical  literature.     There  is  no 


Lect.  V. 


The  Gospels.  i8i 


doubt  that  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  a 
whole,  are  distinguished  from  all  other  literature, 
no  less  by  their  contents  than  they  are  by  their 
character  and  style.  And  their  contents  may  be 
briefly  summed  up  and  expressed  in  one  word  by 
the  conception  or  doctrine  of  a  coming  Messiah. 

If,  therefore,  the  existence  and  the  highly  ex- 
ceptional features  of  this  doctrine  or  conception 
cannot  be  traced  back  or  assigned  to  any  natural 
origin,  it  is  itself  an  evidence  so  far  of  an  origin 
other  than  natural,  an  indication  and  presumptive 
proof  of  an  external  and  Divine  communication 
having  been  made  to  man.  For  if  otherwise,  not 
only  must  the  natural  origin  of  this  doctrine  be 
clearly  discoverable,  but  the  actual  features  of  its 
manifestation  must  be  clearly  explicable  on  natural 
principles  ;  which  they  are  not. 

Having,  however,   thus   far  reviewed   the  ma-  vagueness 
terials  from  which  alone  the  conception  of  a  coming  conception 
Messiah  could  have  been  derived,  we  have  next  to  Messiah. 
consider  the  way  in  which,  as  a  matter  of  historic 
fact,  the  proclamation  that  He  had  come  was  spread 
abroad.     After  the  completion  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  whenever  that  took  place,  it  does 
not  appear  that  any  elements  of  importance  were 
added   to  the    existing   conception    of   a  Messiah. 
That  conception  was  undoubtedly  to  a  great  degree 
vague    and     indefinite.        The     predominant    and 
favourite   idea  was  that  unquestionably   of  a  vie- 


1 82  The  ChjHst  of  lect.  v. 

torious  king.  The  subject  condition  of  the  people 
under  the  Roman  sway  would  naturally  cause  them 
to  cling  to  that  idea  with  fond  tenacity.  The 
foreign  oppression  made  them  long  for  a  deliverer, 
made  them  cherish  their  recollections  of  the  past 
of  David's  throne,  and  indulge  the  ancient  hope 
of  one  who  was  to  sit  thereon. 
But  mainly        j^^^  it  is  uot  to  bc  dcuicd  that  there  were  also 

twofuld. 

vague  impressions  of  suffering  and  death  associated 
with  the  notion  of  a  Messiah.  The  distinct  asser- 
tion of  Daniel  that  the  Prince  Messiah  should  be 
cut  off,  would  alone  and  of  itself  account  for  these. 
And  we  can  see  for  ourselves  the  kind  of  confirma- 
tion they  would  receive  from  other  parts  of  the 
literature.  The  natural  result  of  these  conflicting 
ideas  would  be  the  notion,  which  certainly  prevailed 
to  some  extent  among  the  people,  of  two  Messiahs  : 
if  that  was  rejected,  the  only  solution  would  be 
W  that  the  same  Messiah  was  to  suffer  and  to  reign. 

Unfavour-  Sucli  wcrc  tlic  materials  which  were  in  existence 
when  the  son  of  Zacharias  came  preaching  the 
baptism  of  repentance  in  the  wilderness  of  Judsea, 

history.  ^^^  declaring  himself  the  forerunner  of  One  wdiose 
shoe-latchet  he  was  not  worthy  to  unloose.  There 
is  no  reason  whatever  to  doubt  that  this  was  the 
first  movement  in  that  mighty  chain  of  convulsive 
revolutions  which  stirred  the  heart  of  the  Jewish 
nation  towards  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Tiberius 
Ca3sar.     After  the   lapse  of  upwards   of  four   cen- 


aoie  as  a 
basis 
for  the 
Gospel 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  183 

turies,  a  remarkable  person  had  appeared,  who 
seemed  to  aim  at  the  restoration  of  the  prophetic 
office,  and  to  emulate  in  himself  the  traditional 
characteristics  of  Elijah.  Unquestionably  this  was 
done  by  him  with  special  reference  to  the  writings  of 
Malachi.  He  is  said  to  have  described  himself  as 
tlie  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness,  Prepare 
ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  quoting  words  of  Isaiah 
which  were  obviously  in  the  mind  of  Malachi  when 
he  wrote  about  the  messenger  of  the  Lord  of  hosts 
who  should  prepare  His  way  before  Him,  and  of 
sending  Elijah  the  prophet  before  the  coming  of 
the  great  and  dreadful  day  of  the  Lord. 

The  way,  then,  in  which  John  fulfilled  his  mission  The  mis- 
is  itself  a  proof  of  the  kind  of  anticipation  which  john°t he 
had  either  been  created  by  the  prophets  or  was  ^p''^^' 
capable  of  being  created  by  an  appeal  to  them.  They 
were  regarded  as  the  bearers  of  a  message  which 
waited  for  its  fulfilment.  It  was  not  supposed  that 
the  actual  circumstances  of  their  time  had  exhausted 
all  the  meaning  of  their  language.  It  was  a  fact 
that  expectations  had  been  aroused  by  them,  and 
these  expectations  were  a  reality  which  could  be 
turned  to  account  as  they  were  by  John  the  Baptist. 
While,  however,  this  was  the  case,  John  does  not 
seem  to  have  encouraged  the  popular  notion  that  a 
powerful  ruler  was  about  to  appear.  The  key-note 
of  his  preaching  was  repentance  ;  the  most  conspi- 
cuous feature  of  his  character  was  austerity.     The 


1 84  TJie  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

movement  he  originated  was  purely  moral,  and  in  no 
sense  political.  The  kingdom  to  which  he  referred 
was  not  that  of  Herod  or  Tiberius,  but  the  kingdom 
of  God.  This  particular  phrase,  also,  which  was 
characteristic  of  his  teaching,  was  without  doubt  not 
original  with  him,  but  a  reminiscence  of  the  old  pro- 
phetic teaching,  and  showed  more  esj^ecially  a  re- 
version to  the  language  of  Daniel,  without  which  it 
is  hardly  to  be  understood.  That  prophet  had  said 
that  the  God  of  Heaven  should  set  up  a  kingdom, 
which  should  never  he  destroyed  but  stand  for  ever;  ^ 
and  of  the  Son  of  man,  whom  he  saw  in  the  night 
visions,  he  had  said  that  thei^e  was  given  Him  do- 
minion and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people, 
nations,  and  languages  should  serve  Him;  that  His 
dominion  was  an  everlasting  dominion,  which  shoidd 
not  pass  away,  and  His  kingdom  that  ivhich  shoidd 
not  he  destroyed.'^ 

There  can  be  no  cjuestion  that  this  figure  and 
language  was  adopted  by  John,  and  that  he  believed 
his  own  time  to  be  cast  on  the  eve  of  the  establish- 
ment of  this  kingdom ;  but  he  does  not  appear  to 
have  conceived  of  it  as  earthly  or  as  the  rival  of 
other  kingdoms  already  in  existence.  Certainly  he 
took  no  steps  to  prepare  for  any  such  kingdom, 
though  he  believed  he  was  2^1'eparing  the  way  before 
the  Lord  by  the  preaching  of  the  baptism  of  repent- 
ance for  the  remission  of  sins. 

'    Dan.  ii.  44.  ^  ^jj^  i4_ 


The  Gospels.  185 


While,  however,  he  bore  his  testimony  to  Jesus, 
he  seems,  at  all  events  latterly,  to  have  had  mis- 
givings about  Him ;  and  he  certainly  died  without 
seeing  the  advent  of  that  kingdom  which  he  had 
proclaimed  as  near. 

His  career,  however,  had  produced  certain  re-  The 
suits.  It  must  have  had  the  effect  of  resuscitating  produced 
the  popular  faith  in  the  promises  of  the  ancient  pro-  ^  '^' 
phets.  For  a  long  time  that  faith  had  languished  ; 
it  now  revived  with  unusual  vigour,  so  much  so  that 
all  men  mused  in  tlieii'  hearts  of  John  whether  he 
were  the  Christ  or  not}  He  declared,  however,  that 
he  was  notthe  Christ,h\it  that  he  was  sent  before  Him. 
The  preaching  of  John,  then,  had  had  the  effect  of 
raising  men's  minds  to  the  very  verge  of  immediate 
expectation.  It  had  also  the  further  effect  of  warn- 
ing men  that  the  kingdom  which  they  expected  could 
only  be  prepared  for  by  a  moral  reformation.  As  it 
had  been  said  of  the  coming  Elijah  that  he  should 
turn  the  heart  of  the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the 
heart  of  the  children  to  their  fathers,  so  the  mission 
of  John  was  directed,  to  the  moral  regeneration  of 
society.  This,  however,  he  distinctly  declared  him- 
self unal^le  to  complete  ;  it  was  to  be  the  work  of 
the  "  one  greater  Man  "  who  was  to  come. 

I  think,  then,  we  may  fairly  say  that  the  cha-  Character 
racter  of  John  the  Baptist  as  drawn  l:>y  the  Evan-  ^^J'f^. 
gelists  is  not  one  that  could  have  been  constructed  ou"of  fi^^ 

'   St.  Luke  in.  15.  P'-^P^^'^ ' 


1 86  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

out  of  the  materials  already  existing  in  Isaiah  and 
Malachi.  No  pondering  over  the  obscure  language 
of  these  prophets  could  have  resulted  in  such  a 
picture  as  the  Gospel-writers  have  delineated.  And 
if,  availing  themselves  of  the  foundation  of  fact  that 
was  ready  to  hand,  they  coloured  it  to  suit  their 
own  purposes,  they  did  not  bring  it  more  into  har- 
mony with  the  original  as  sketched  by  the  prophets. 
In  fact,  their  own  portrait  of  the  Baptist  was  an 
original  of  itself.  As  a  fabrication  it  was  no  counter- 
part  to  the  shadowy  outline  of  the  prophets.  It  was 
therefore  drawn  from  the  life,  or  it  was  nothing. 

But  if  we  take  the  character  of  John  as  presented 
in  the  Gospels  to  be  a  true  representation  of  an  his- 
torical personage,  it  is  not  at  all  more  easy  to  under- 
stand how  it  could  have  been  designedly  produced 
but  wholly  upon  the  model  already  existing.  To  suppose  that 
ongina .  j^|^^^  deliberately  set  himself  down  to  mark  out  for 
himself  a  career  that  should  have  the  effect  of  corre- 
sponding with  what  had  been  written  of  the  messen- 
ger of  the  Lord,  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 
Even  if  so,  his  character  had  all  the  merit  of  profound 
originality.  And,  therefore,  as  it  could  not  have 
been  naturally  created  by  an  effort  of  the  personal  will 
out  of  the  slender  materials  to  be  gathered  from  the 
prophets,  the  character  of  John  can  only  be  regarded 
as  an  independent  and  spontaneous  creation  of  his- 
tory ;  and  any  correspondence  it  may  have  with  the 
pro})hctical  portrait  of  the  messenger  of  the  Lord 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  1 8  7 

must  be  judged  simply  on  its  own  merits,  and  can- 
not be  ascribed,  on  the  one  hand,  to  the  deliberate 
intention  of  John,  or,  on  the  other,  to  the  construct- 
ive literary  skill  of  the  Evangelists. 

And  if  this  is  true  of  the  very  first  character  we  This  much 

.  ,      .        ,        ^  11-  -1  •  vcvoxQ  true 

meet  with  m  the  Gosj^ei  history,  it  becomes  so  m  aofjesus. 
far  higher  degree  of  the  great  character  of  all.  The 
only  reasonable  theory  of  that  history,  if  it  is  not 
accepted  as  a  trustworthy  record  of  fact,  is  that  the 
TVTiters  were  supplied  with  a  remarkable  character 
in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  and  that  they 
designedly  moulded  their  representation  of  His 
character  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  it  appear  to  be 
the  historical  counterpart  of  the  prophetic  Messiah. 

To   estimate  the  probability  of  this  beins;  the  The  mate- 

■^  "^  °  rials  avail- 

case,  we    must    carefully  remember   the    materials  able  for 

which  they  had  ready  to  hand.     These  were  the  for  the 

dreams  of  the  prophets,  on  which  rested  the  ancient  geiists. 

but  apparently  the  long-forgotten  hope  of  an  heir  to 

the  house  of  David.     As  that  family  was  now  in  a 

very  prostrate  condition,  it  was  apparently  quite 

hopeless  that  it  should  again  emerge  to  power.     If 

David's  family  was  ever  to  rule  again,  there  was  no 

visible  or  immediate  prospect  of  its  ruling. 

But  on  this  point,  if  on  any,  the  ancient  prophets 

were  with  one  voice  unanimous.    That  rule,  however, 

was  uniformly  depicted  in  the  prophetic  language 

with  the   adjuncts  of  worldly  glory  and  material 

splendour.     Kings  were  to  be  smitten  to  the  earth 


The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 


beneath  the  iron  rod  of  the  avensfiuo;^  Kino-.  Gold 
and  silver  were  to  be  brought  in  abundance  to 
adorn  the  footstool  of  his  throne.^  All  the  regal 
garments  were  to  smell  of  myrrh,  aloes,  and  cassia, 
out  of  the  ivory  palaces.-^  A  very  unpromising  sub- 
ject that  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  out  of  which  to  con- 
struct a  portrait  which  was  to  be  accepted  as  the 
counterpart  of  this.  But  these  were  the  materials 
with  which  the  Gospel-writers  had  to  work.  Like 
the  Egyptian  bondsmen  of  old,  they  were  reduced 
to  the  necessity  of  making  bricks  without  straw. 
But  how  this  was  to  be  done  might  have  taxed  a 
finer  ingenuity  than  theii's. 

And  it  must  be  remembered  that  all  the  know- 
ledge w^e  possess  of  the  origin  of  that  movement 
which  is  associated  with  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ, 
is  comprised  in  the  Gospels.  If  they  are  not 
actually  the  earliest  Christian  writings,  they  at  least 
profess  to  deal  with  a  time  anterior  to  any  other 
compositions,  epistolary  or  narrative.  Whether  or 
not,  therefore,  they  are  to  be  taken  exactly  as  we 
find  them,  they  are  absolutely  the  only  sources  from 
which  we  can  derive  our  information.  And  while 
in  endeavouring  to  form  an  entirely  dispassionate 
judgment,  we  may  justly  be  required  to  reject 
everything  of  a  supernatural  or  miraculous 
character,  there  are  certain  natural  features  insepa- 
rable from  the  narrative  which  we  are  bound  to 

1  Ps.  ii.  9.  2  I,  ix.  17,  13.  ^  Ps.  xlv.  8. 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels. 


accept.  And  among  these  are  the  claims  advanced 
by  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  the  way  in  which 
he  advanced  them,  or  is  said  to  have  advanced 
them. 

It  is  obvious  therefore  that  the  only  materials  These 

were  tlie 

that  Jesus  himself  or  the  Evangelists  had  to  work  Scriptui-es 
with  in  advancing  these  claims  were  the  writings  career  of 
of  the  prophets,  the  national  expectations  derived  "" 
from  them,  and  the  movement  originated  by  John 
the  Baptist.  There  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
preaching  of  Jesus  commenced  before  that  of  John 
had  come  to  an  end,  or  at  all  events  before  the  death 
of  John.^  Early  Christian  tradition,  which  we  need 
not  hesitate  to  accept,  places  but  a  difference  of  six 
months  between  their  respective  ages.  Each  of  the 
Gospels  represents  the  ministry  of  Jesus  as  imme- 
diately connected  with  that  of  John.  The  fourth 
Gospel  seems  to  hint  at  a  kind  of  rivalry  as  from 
the  first  subsisting  between  the  disciples  of  John 
and  of  Jesus — a  rivalry,  however,  which  elicited 
some  of  the  noblest  features  of  John's  character, 
and  which  was  certainly  not  encouraged  by  Jesus. ^ 

One  of  the  first  c[uestions,  then,  which  suggest  Th 
themselves    in    considering    this    portion    of    the  entirely 


e  career 
of  Jesus 


narrative  is  how  far  what  we  may  call  the  idea  of  ent 


independ- 

Jesus   was    derived   from   that  of  John.     All   the 
Evangelists  agree  in  representing  Jesus  to  have  been 

1  St.  Johniii.  24.    St.  Matt.  xiv.  10.     St.  Mark  vi.  27.    St.  Luke 
iii.  20.  -  St.  John  iii.  25  :    iv.  3. 


and 
distinct. 


1 90  The  Christ  of  Lect.  v. 

baptised  by  John/  and  to  have  had  a  special  desig- 
nation of  his  career  given  him  at  that  moment. 
And  they  declare  unanimously  that  John  was  the 
first  to  acknowledge  this.  It  was  indeed  essential 
to  the  part  which  John  may  be  supposed  to  have 
assumed  that  he  should  point  out  his  great  Successor. 
But  after  he  had  done  this  it  was  clearly  open  to 
his  successor  how  He  should  determine  His  own 
career.  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  He  should 
have  adopted  from  the  first  the  very  language  of 
John,  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand.  But  having  begun  from  the  same  point,  He 
had  before  Him  a  totally  independent  and  a  far 
more  difficult  course  to  fulfil  than  that  of  John. 

But  if  the  conception  of  John  was  original,  it 
was  also  unaccountable  that  he  should  have  chosen 
the  particular  character  he  did.  With  the  two 
characters  of  Christ  and  His  forerunner  both  before 
him,  why  should  he  have  chosen  the  forerunner's 
instead  of  Christ's  ?  And  yet  there  is  no  evidence 
that  these  two  characters  were  ever  reversed,  or  that 
the  relative  positions  of  John  and  Jesus  were  ever 
diff"erent.  And  from  what  we  know  of  John  it  is 
certain  that  his  character  would  never  have  supplied 
the  materials  for  a  counterpart  of  the  projDhetic 
Messiah,  while,  according  to  the  testimony  of  all  the 
Gospels,  he  expressly  disclaimed  that  office. 

It  must  be  confessed,  then,  that  Jesus  when  He 

1  St.  John  implies  this,  i.  31,  33. 


Lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  1 9 1 

entered  on  His  career  had  before  Him  a  task  of  no 
ordinary  magnitude  and  difficulty,  if  from  the  first 
He  intended  to  propose  Himself  as  the  Messiah. 
What  is  the  evidence  that  he  had  this  intention  ? 
The  ministry  and  career  of  John  the  Baptist. 

We  know  very  little  of  John  if  he  did  not  pro-  The  evi- 

,  .     dence  on 

fess  to  be  the  forerunner  of  Christ,  and  there  is  this  point 
sufficient  evidence  that  Jesus  regarded  John,  and 
taught  others  to  regard  him  in  that  capacity. 
With  this  evidence  before  us  we  cannot  say  that  the 
distinctive  character  of  John  was  one  assigned  to 
him  only  by  the  Evangelists.  We  must  assume  that 
he  claimed  to  fulfil  this  office,  and  that  from  a  very 
early  period  of  his  ministry  Jesus  acknowledged  him 
in  it.  But  if  so,  the  Messianic  character  of  Jesus  was 
a  conception  present  to  His  mind  from  the  begin- 
ning of  His  ministry.  It  did  not  first  dawn  upon 
Him  in  consequence  of  unexpected  success.  It  was 
not  an  afterthought,  but  He  aimed  at  fulfilling  it 
from  the  first. 

For  example,  in  the  sermon  on  the  mount  He 
says — Tkink  not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the 
law  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to  destroy,  hut 
to  fulfil;^  and  at  the  same  time  announces  Himself 
as  a  greater  lawgiver  than  Moses.  This  from  a 
Galilsean   peasant   who  had   been   brought   up   in 

1  St.  Matt.  V.  17  ;  xi.  10, 14  ;  xvii.  11,13;  xxi.  23-26.  St.  Mark 
ix.  12,  13  ;  xi.  30-32.  St.  Luke  vii.  27  ;  xx.  4-6.  St.  John  v. 
32-35. 


192  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

obscurity  is  sufficiently  significant  of  His  claims,  and 
indicative  of  the  office  He  assumed.  In  tlie  same 
discourse  He  not  only  gives  His  disciples  new  prin- 
ciples of  conduct,  but  provides  for  them  a  new 
model  of  prayer,  and  distinctly  announces  Himself  as 
the  future  Judge  of  the  world  as  well  as  the  Saviour 
of  mankind,  whose  doctrine  is  a  sure  foundation. 
Is  it  possible  that  the  Man  who  in  one  of  His  earliest 
discourses  made  use  of  language  such  as  this  should 
have  felt  any  hesitation  in  His  own  mind  as  to  the 
career  on  which  He  was  entering  ? 
The  origin-  It  is  to  bc  obscrvcd,  also,  that  though  His  preacli- 
ChHs°'s  ing  commenced  with  the  same  key-note  as  John's,  it 
at  once  passes  into  a  higher  strain  and  assumes  on 
His  lips  a  deeper  significance.  John  had  not  ven- 
tured to  define  what  he  meant  by  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ;  but  no  sooner  does  Jesus  open  His  mouth 
than  He  says.  Blessed  are  the  jpoor  in  spirit,  for 
theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven}  What  a  turning 
of  things  upside  down  was  there  not  here  for  those 
who  looked  for  a  temporal  king,  and  what  an  ori- 
ginal conception  for  one  who  claimed  to  be  the  king 
for  whom  they  looked,  or  of  whom  the  prophets  had 
spoken,  but  who  had  no  other  materials  to  work 
with  than  those  which  were  common  to  the  multi- 
tudes and  to  Him  !  Nor  is  this  all,  for  He  claims  to 
know  so  well  the  nature  of  that  of  which  He  speaks, 
that  He  declares  without  hesitation  who  shall  re- 

1   St.  ]\Iatt.  V.  3. 


language 
and  teach 
ing. 


Lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  193 

spectively  be  called  least  and  first  in  the  kingdom 
of  lieaven.  At  the  same  time  He  promulgates  a 
new  name  for  God,  which  fell  upon  men's  ears  like 
music  from  another  world,  which  had  never  before 
had  the  same  significance,  and  is  even  now  but 
feebly  apprehended  and  imperfectly  understood 
after  being  repeated  for  more  than  eighteen  cen- 
turies— that,  namely,  of  your  Father  which  is 
in  heaven;'^  while,  with  an  eye  that  sees  into  the 
very  depth  of  truth,  wisdom,  and  beauty,  and  a 
heart  that  can  pass  an  original  interpretation  upon 
the  commonest  works  of  nature.  He  says  of  Him, 
that  He  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  on  the  evil  and 
on  the  good,  and  sendeth  rain  on  the  just  and  on 
the  unjust.'^  He  knows  who  they  are  whom  this 
Father  which  is  in  heaven  will  reward,  and  who 
they  are  whom  He  will  not  forgive.  He  exhorts 
His  disciples  to  seek  first  this  kingdom  of  heaven,  as 
though  it  were  something  already  within  their  reach, 
and  only  required  to  be  sought  for  earnestly ;  and 
to  seek  it  even  before  food  and  clothing,  because 
there  was  a  higher  life  which  God  alone  could 
supply,  and  because  He  who  was  mindful  of  the 
greater  would  assuredly  not  forget  the  less.  He 
knows  who  they  are  that  shall  enter  into  this  king- 
dom, and  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that  the  determina- 
tion of  them  rests  with  Him. 

It  is  easy  to  see,  then,  that  already  the  remark- 

'  St.  Matt.  V.  16.  ^  V.  45. 

o 


1 94  The  Christ  of  Lect.  v. 

Its  con-  able  phrase,  the  Jcingdom  of  heaven,  has  assumed  a 
tiS  of  very  different  meaning  in  the  language  of  Jesus  from 
■^°  "'  that  which  it  had  in  the  teaching  of  John ;  and  if 
one  conception  was  original,  so  was  the  other  too. 
Jesus  cannot  have  derived  from  John  the  first 
thought  of  His  career,  the  first  suggestion  of  the 
character  He  was  to  personate,  because  the  method 
He  at  once  adopts  is  totally  different.  No  language 
such  as  this  had  ever  been  used  by  John.  No  pre- 
tensions similar  to  these  had  ever  been  advanced  by 
John.  Jesus  from  the  first  enters  another  orbit,  and 
the  circle  he  describes  differs  from  that  of  John  as 
the  infinite  differs  from  the  finite. 

And  here  there  are  but  two  courses  open  to  us. 
Either  these  were  respectively  the  characters  of  John 
and  Jesus,  or  else  they  were  the  invention  of  those 
who  wrote  the  Gospels.  If  the  characters  of  John 
and  Jesus  respectively  were  such  as  they  are  de- 
scribed to  have  been,  and  if  the  one  man  claimed  to 
be  the  forerunner,  and  the  other  the  Messiah,  then 
we  know  exactly  the  kind  of  foundation  upon  which 
each  had  to  build.  And  certainly,  prior  to  the  fact, 
no  one  could  have  ventured  to  predict  for  either  the 
slightest  prospect  of  success.  The  conception  of  the 
Messianic  office  as  it  was  fulfilled  by  Jesus  was  so 
novel,  and  so  unlike  anything  that  had  been  or  was 
likely  to  be  derived  from  the  prophets,  and  welcome 
to  the  popular  mind,  that  we  can  only  wonder  at  its 
daring  originality. 


which  was 
real, 


Lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  195 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  these  two  characters  were  or  else  in- 

1        •  •  c     ^       -^^  T  1  •       j_  Vented  by 

the  invention  oi  the  JiiVangensts,  and  were  msttances  the  Evan- 
of  the  way  in  which  they  misrepresented  facts,  then,  ^ 
as  we  have  no  means  of  determining  what  the  facts 
were  which  they  misrepresented,  we  can  onty  esti- 
mate their  misrepresentation  as  we  find  it.  And 
not  only  are  the  two  portraits  of  John  and  Jesus,  as 
given  by  the  Evangelists,  such  as  we  cannot  under- 
stand to  have  originated  with  men  of  the  stamp  of 
the  disciples  of  Jesus,  but  they  are  also  the  exact 
opposite  of  what  we  should  have  expected  them  to 
construct  out  of  the  writings  of  the  prophets  and 
the  popular  anticipations  based  thereon. 

Looking  at  the  Gospels  merely  as  fictitious  nar- 
ratives purporting  to  record  the  fulfilment  of  the 
prophets,  we  have  to  account,  first  of  all,  for  the 
extreme  and  obvious  dissimilarity  between  the  pro- 
phetic ideal  and  the  professed  historic  fulfilment  of 
it.  And  this  is  equally  true  whether  the  claim  to 
be  the  Messiah  was  advanced  by  Jesus  himself  or  by 
his  followers  on  his  behalf. 

But,  in  order  to  see  this  more  clearly,  let  us  The 
examine  the  method  pursued  by  Jesus  in  advancing  pursued 
this  claim.     It  will  not  be  doubted  that  miracles  wiicrem- 
were  an  essential  ]3art  of  it.     That  Jesus  professed  miracles 
to  work  miracles  there  can  be  no  question.     This 
was  a  fundamental  difi^erence  between  the  course 
adopted  by  John  and  that  followed  by  Jesus.     It 
was  a  conspicuous  mark  of  the  originality  of  the 


1 96  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  V. 


latter  compared  with  the  former.  It  was  a  distinct 
return  to  the  method  of  the  old  prophets  Elijah  and 
Elisha.  But  though  we  can  see  that  there  were  pass- 
ages in  Isaiah^  which  might  have  prepared  men's 
minds  for  such  a  putting  forth  of  the  Divine  power, 
it  is  not  in  the  least  degree  probable  that  they  would 
have  suggested  the  anticijDation  of  it.  And  yet, 
from  the  very  first,  the  mind  of  Jesus  seized  upon 
this  feature  as  an  essential  characteristic  of  the  part 
He  had  assumed.  And  He  never  abandoned  it  to  the 
last.  It  is  not  a  cjuestion  now  of  the  reality  of  the 
miracles,  but  of  the  fact  whether  or  not  they  formed 
a  part  of  His  conception  of  the  Messianic  office.  And 
of  this  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  it  is  hard  to  say 
whether  such  a  conception  is  to  be  considered  more 
probable  if  originating  with  Him  or  with  the  writers 
of  the  Gospel  narrative.  Supposing  the  Evangelists 
to  have  had  before  them  the  task  of  constructing  the 
figure  of  a  Messiah  out  of  the  materials  already 
existing  in  the  Scriptures,  what  reason  is  there  to 
suppose  that  they  would  have  performed  it  in  this 
way,  and  selected  these  particular  features,  by  no 
means  the  most  prominent  ? 
and  par-  ,  The  samc  is  to  be  said  of  the  method  of  teach- 
ing by  parable  so  frequently  adopted  by  Jesus. 
This  was  a  method  of  which  there  were  but  few 
examples  in  the  Old  Testament ;  it  was,  comj)ara- 
tively  speaking,  altogether  new.      And,  taking  the 

^  Isa.  xxix.  18  ;  xxxv.  4,  5,  6  ;  xlii.  7. 


ables 


Lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  197 

reason  assigned  for  the  clioice  of  it  by  St.  Matthew,^ 
we  certainly  cannot  see  eitlier  that  it  was  essential 
to  the  prophetic  conception  of  the  Messianic  charac- 
ter, or  that  it  was  a  feature  likely  to  commend  itself 
to  men  like  the  Evangelists,  or  those  for  w4iom  they 
wrote.  And  yet  it  was  a  method  actually  followed  by 
Jesus,  or  deliberately  assigned  to  Him  by  those  who 
wished  to  represent  Him  as  the  promised  Messiah. 

Not  less  remarkable  is  the  substance  of  the  teach- 
ing w^hich  was  inculcated  by  Jesus,  Bearing  inTheposi- 
mind  that  the  character  He  was  to  personate  had  claimed  for 
to  be  constructed  out  of  materials  already  existing, 
or  at  all  events  to  be  conformed  naturally  to  them, 
it  appears  that  the  special  prominence  given  by 
Jesus  to  faith  was  not  likely  to  suggest  itself  to  the 
ordinary  student  of  the  Scripture  record.  We 
probably  find  it  difficult  at  times  to  justify  to 
ourselves  the  threefold  ^  quotation  of  the  words  of 
Habakkuk  in  the  New  Testament,  Tlie  just  shall 
live  hy  faith,  with  the  superstructure  that  is 
reared  upon  it.  Even  the  repeated  reference  to 
this  very  passage  may  serve  to  show  that  the 
doctrine  based  upon  it  was  not  the  most  con- 
spicuous on  the  surface  of  the  Old  Testament.  But 
it  cannot  fail  to  strike  the  most  casual  observer 
of  our  Lord's  teaching  that  the  inculcation  of  per- 
sonal faith  occupies  perhaps  the  very  foremost 
place  in   it.     What  words  more  common   on   His 

1  St.  Matt.  xiii.  35.  -  Rom.  i.  17  ;  Gal.  iii.  11  ;  Heb.  x.  38. 


198  The  CJu'ist  of  lect.  v. 

lips  than  T)mj  faith  hath  saved  thee,  and  the  like  1 
while  with  many  of  His  discourses  it  is  this  root- 
principle  of  faith  that  they  seem  intended  to 
develop  more  than  any  other,  or  at  least  as  fre- 
quently as  any  other.  After  we  have  accepted 
His  teaching,  or  at  any  rate  been  instructed  by  it, 
we  find  it  easy  to  discover  the  very  same  principle 
underlying  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  it  is  He  who  has  guided  us  to  it ;  and 
from  this  fact  we  have  to  estimate  the  nature  of 
the  discovery  in  the  first  instance,  and  to  judge  of 
the  originality  of  Him  who  made  it.  Surely  to 
gather  up  into  one  root -principle  the  substantial 
teaching  of  a  large  portion  both  of  Psalm  and  Pro- 
phecy was  an  achievement  of  originality  and  genius 
second  only,  if  second,  to  that  which  could  declare 
to  professed  doctors  of  the  law,  that  to  love  the 
Lord  with  all  the  heart  and  to  love  one's  neighbour 
as  oneself  were  the  two  commandments  on  which 
depended  all  the  law  and  the  prophets. 
Identifying  But  if  such  teaching  as  this  contained  in  itself 
with  die  the  marks  of  striking  originality,  how  much  more 
ofir^  daring  and  hazardous  was  the  undisguised  attempt 
on  the  part  of  Jesus  to  identify  Himself  with  the 
ultimate  object  of  this  faith !  And  yet  it  cannot  be 
doubted  that  this,  and  nothing  short  of  this,  was  in 
many  cases  the  direct  and  expressed  intention  of 
Jesus.  For  what  other  reason  was  the  woman  with 
an  issue  of  blood  healed,  but  that  her  faith  in  Him 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  199 

had  made  her  whole  ?  ^  For  what  other  reason  was 
sight  given  to  the  two  blind  men  in  the  same 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  but  that  they 
believed  Ee  was  able  to  give  it?  And  let  it  be 
most  carefully  observed,  that  we  neither  assume 
these  miracles  to  have  been  actually  wrought  by 
Jesus,  nor  that  Jesus  had  the  power  to  work  them, 
but  only  that  He  really  did  profess  to  work  them ; 
or,  what  the  severest  criticism  cannot  deny  us,  that 
the  Evangelist  represented  the  man  whom  he  would 
have  us  believe  to  have  been  the  Messiah  as  having 
actually  wrought  them,  and  as  having  wrought 
them  under  these  conditions.  More  than  this  we 
do  not  ask,  and  thus  much  all  are  bound  to  con- 
cede, that  these  were  fair  samples  of  the  way  in 
which  Jesus  advanced  His  claim  to  be  the  Messiah, 
or  at  least  of  the  way  in  which  that  claim  was 
advanced  for  Him  by  the  Evangelists.  And  we 
say  that  in  either  case  the  position  to  be  main- 
tained was  one  of  which  we  are  able  to  form  a 
sufficiently  correct  idea.  The  only  foundation  which 
either  the  one  or  the  other  had  to  build  upon  was 
what  had  been  written  of  old,  and  what  was  then 
cherished  by  the  people  in  consequence  of  it.  And 
it  certainly  does  not  appear  that  either  was,  or  that 
both  together  were,  a  basis  adequate  to  sustain  the 
superstructure  to  be  reared  upon  it.  And  yet  we 
cannot  doubt  that  it  was  in  this  manner,  and  in 

1  St.  Matt.  ix.  22.     St.  Mark  v.  34.      St.  Luke  viii.  48. 


200  The  CJirist  of  Lect.  v. 

tliis   manner   only,   that  the   earliest    attempts   to 
delineate  the   personal  character   and    conduct   of 
Jesus  were  made. 
The  ap-  Affaiu,  it  is  perhaps  le2;itimate  to  detect  in  the 

pointnient  .  i  i  •      t         • 

of  the  appointment  oi  twelve  apostles  an  indication  on 
the  part  of  Jesus  of  a  claim  to  be  the  founder  of  a 
new  society  or  kingdom,  which  is  implied  in  the 
Messiahship.  In  it  there  was  a  manifest  imitation 
of  the  twelve  tribes,  of  which  the  nation  was 
originally  composed,  and  their  founders.  If  the 
nation  was  to  be  reconstructed,  it  was  certainly  not 
unnatural  that  it  should  be  so  upon  this  scheme. 
But  it  nowhere  appeared  as  a  characteristic  of  the 
coming  Messiah  that  He  should  act  thus.  Here, 
therefore,  there  was  an  original  step  taken  which 
was  not  calculated  to  advance  the  claims  put  forth 
by  Jesus,  and  which  could  only  be  interpreted  as  a 
parody  upon  the  patriarchal  history,  if  it  was  not 
accepted  according  to  the  sj^irit  and  intention  of 
its  Author.  But  if  the  act  of  Jesus  had  an  anterior 
prejudice  against  it,  that  act  becomes  yet  more 
unaccountable,  not  to  say  absurd,  if  regarded  as  the 
invention  of  the  Gospel-writers.  It  is  hard  to  see 
that  their  case  for  Jesus  being  the  Messiah  would 
be  in  any  degree  advanced  by  His  being  made  to 
choose  twelve  men,  for  the  most  part  fishermen, 
and  sending  them  forth  to  preach.  What  prophecy 
was  fulfilled  by  His  so  doing?  And  to  suppose 
that  the  object  was  to  give  the  imagined  king  the 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  201 

semblance  of  a  court,  and  on  that  ground  to  com- 
mend Him  as  the  glorious  monarch  spoken  of  by 
the  prophets  and  cherished  in  the  day-dreams  of 
the  people,  is  simply  preposterous. 

The  charge,  also,  that  was  given  to  the  twelve  who  are 
suggests  at  least  one  point  in  which  the  conception  to  go  to 
of  Jesus  and  of  the  Evangelists  appears  to  have  tues. 
been  in  direct  opposition  to  the  prophets.  The 
apostles  are  expressly  forbidden  to  go  to  the  Gen- 
tiles or  to  the  Samaritans,  and  on  another  occasion 
we  know  that  our  Lord  refused  to  hear  the  petition 
of  an  alien  on  the  ground  that  He  was  not  sent  but 
unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ;  whereas 
it  must  have  been  clear  to  the  men  of  that  day 
that  the  promise  of  unlimited  dominion  had  been 
given  to  the  future  king,  and  at  least  one  passage, 
which  must  have  been  regarded  both  by  Jesus  and 
His  disciples  as  Messianic,  had  said  He  shall  speak 
peace  unto  the  heathen  :  a^id  his  dominion  shall  he 
from  sea  even  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  even  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth}  Surely,  then,  it  was  a  gratui- 
tous violation  of  apparent  Messianic  characteristics, 
either  for  Jesus  to  confine  His  attention  so  rigorously 
to  the  people  of  His  own  nation,  or  for  His  biogra- 
phers to  represent  Him  as  doing  so.  And  yet  in 
this  same  charge  to  the  twelve  we  have  the  spon- 
taneous conviction  breaking  out  that  a  much  wider 
field  than  Palestine  lay  before  them  :  And  ye  sliall 

^  Zecli.  ix.  10. 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  v. 


he  brought  hefo7'e  governers  and  kings  for  my  sake, 
for  a  testimony  against  them  and  the  Gentiles;^ 
together  witli  a  clear  perception  of  tlie  consequences 
of  their  teaching  and  of  His  own  mission  :  Think 
not  that  I  am  come  to  send  peace  on  earth:  1  came 
not  to  send  2^ectce,  hut  a  sivord?  For  a  mans 
foes  shall  he  they  of  his  own  household.^  We  may 
accept  this  as  an  indication  that  any  snch  apparent 
divergence  from  the  path  prescribed  to  the  Messiah 
was  intentional  on  the  part  of  Jesus.  It  was  a 
token  of  conscious  reserve  of  power.  He  intended 
His  dominion  to  be  universal,  but  not  as  it  might 
be  presumed  it  would  be.  He  intended  to  rule 
over  the  Gentiles,  but  not  till  He  had  first  been 
rejected  as  king  of  the  Jews. 
The  And  all  this  must  be  reckoned  as  a  part  of  the 

of  nfs  own  Messianic  idea  as  it  was  sought  to  be  realised  by 
Jesus,  or  else  as  a  part  of  that  idea  which  His 
disciples  attributed  to  Him.  And  in  either  case  it 
does  not  fit  in  well  with  those  materials  which  we 
know  were  then  in  existence,  out  of  which,  and  of 
which  alone,  it  was  possible  for  it  to  have  been 
originated. 

There  are,  moreover,  other  points  which  appear 
to  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of  Jesus  as  an 
integral  part  of  His  plan,  if  not  from  the  very  first, 
at  least  from  a  very  early  period.  The  first  of  these 
was  His  own  death.     No   wise  man  can  ever  be 

'  St.  Matt.  X.  18.  '  X.34.  ^  x.  36. 


death. 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  203 

unmindful  of  death — and  bear  witli  me,  brethren,  if 
I  pause  for  a  moment  to  ask,  Have  not  we  here,  as 
well  as  the  world  of  science  at  large,  been  reminded 
but  now  of  the  ever  solemn,  but,  to  the  believing 
Christian,  the  never  awful  nearness  of  death,  even 
in  the  midst  of  ease,  honour,  and  usefulness,  by  the 
lamentable  accident  of  Thursday  last,  which  has 
deprived  this  university  of  one  of  her  brightest 
ornaments,^  and  united  her  in  what  was  so  recently 
to  both  an  equal  sorrow  with  the  sister  university  ^ 
of  this  land,  and  with  the  younger  but  kindred 
institution  ^  of  a  distant  hemisphere  ?  Verily  we 
have  cause  to  pray,  So  teach  us  to  numher  our 
days  that  we  may  afpiily  our  hearts  unto  ivisdoiyi, 
for  the  wise  man  is  ever  mindful  of  death — and 
therefore  we  need  not  wonder  if  we  find  allusions 
to  His  own  death  in  the  recorded  words  of  Jesus. 
But  the  allusions  we  do  find  are  of  a  very  different 
character  from  these.  Even  the  beatitudes  in  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  contained  an  ominous  fore- 
boding of  persecution  for  His  sake ;  ^  and  in  the 
"charge  to  the  twelve  already  mentioned  we  find 
the  yet  more  remarkable  words,  Jle  that  taketh  not 
his  cross  and  foUovjeth  after  me  is  not  worthy  oj 
me.^     Indeed,  the  greater  portion  of  that  address 

^  John  Phillips  died  April  24,  1874. 
-  Adam  Sedgwick  died  Jan.  27,  1873. 
^  Lonis  J.  R.  Agassiz  died  Dec.  14,  1873. 
■*  St.  Matt.  V.  10,  11.  '  X.  38. 


204  The  Christ  of  Lect.  v. 

is  a  solemn  and  unambiguous  warning  not  to  be 
dismayed  at  persecution.  If  it  was  merely  put 
into  the  mouth  of  Jesus  by  the  writer,  even  then 
it  must  be  reckoned  as  part  of  the  writer's  con- 
ception of  the  Messiah,  and  it  is  an  indication  of 
the  consistent  development  of  his  plan  from  the 
first.  He  did  not  suddenly  pause  in  his  career  and 
change  his  course,  but  held  on  steadily,  knowing 
when  he  started  what  the  goal  was  to  be  and  the 
way  to  reach  it.  When  the  disciples  of  the  im- 
prisoned John  came  to  Jesus  to  ask  whether  He 
was  the  Messiah,  the  answer  given  was  an  appeal 
to  certain  language  of  Isaiah,  which  spoke  of  the 
blind  seeing,  the  deaf  hearing,  and  the  like,  coupled 
with  the  admonitory  benediction :  Blessed  is  he, 
whosoever  shall  not  he  offended  in  me}  This  not 
only  showed  the  idea  which  Jesus  had  formed  of 
the  Messiah's  office,  but  the  kind  of  fate  He  antici- 
pated for  Himself.  Shortly  after  we  read  of  the 
Pharisees  holding  a  council  how  they  might  de- 
stroy Him,^  and  of  Jesus  withdrawing  Himself  and 
charging  the  multitudes  not  to  make  Him  known. 
This  appears  to  the  writer  to  be  a  fulfilment  of 
other  language  of  the  prophet,  but  it  is  such  as  could 
hardly  have  suggested  itself  spontaneously  to  him 
if  he  were  inventing  his  portrait  of  the  Christ,  and 
it  would  have  been  unlikely  to  commend  itself  to 
those  who  expected  the  advent  of  a  powerful  king. 

1  St.  Matt.  xi.  G.  '  xii.  14. 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels,  205 

It   appears,    however,   accordine^   to   him,   that  He 

^  ^  .  n  •       1  claimed 

shortly  afterwards  the  question  was  actually  raised  to  be  the 
Is  not  this  the  son  of  David  ?  ^  And  there  can  be 
little  doubt  that  this  question  was  debated  in  our 
Lord's  lifetime.  We  may  fairly  ask,  therefore.  If  it 
was,  why  was  it  ?  For,  considering  the  mean 
origin  of  Jesus,  and  the  unpromising  circumstances 
of  His  position,  there  appears  to  have  been  no 
adequate  cause  for  any  such  question  to  be  raised, 
unless  the  surroundings  of  His  character  were  not 
altogether  unlike  those  assigned  to  Him  by  the 
Evangelists.  But  if  men  really  did  ask  this  ques- 
tion, it  can  only  have  been  in  consequence  of  the 
teaching  of  John,  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  about 
Himself,  and  the  works  wrought  by  Jesus  :  it  can- 
not have  been  because  of  the  striking  external 
resemblance  between  the  person  of  Jesus  and  the 
descriptions  given  by  the  prophets  of  the  Messiah. 
Unless,  therefore,  we  can  actually  disprove  the  fact 
of  this  question  having  been  asked,  it  may  surely 
be  taken  as  an  incidental  corroboration  of  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  Gospel  narrative.  Jesus  did 
profess  to  be  the  Christ :  He  did  profess  to  work 
miracles  :  His  claims  to  be  the  Christ  were 
advanced,  and  were  to  a  certain  extent  admitted, 
notwithstanding  the  many  outward  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  any  such  admission.  Surely  no  treat- 
ment of  the  Gospel  history  can    demur  to   these 

^  St.  Matt.  xii.  14. 


2o6  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

inferences  being  drawn  from  its  broad  and  general 
tenor. 

There  appears,  however,  to  have  been  a  point  in 
the  career  of  Jesus  when  His  allusions  to  His  own 
death  became  more  explicit  and  distinct,  and  this 
was  after  what  is  called  His  transfiguration.  Ac- 
cording to  the  first  Gospel,  He  had  twice  ^  before 
that  event  spoken  of  taking  up  the  cross  and  follow- 
ing- Him,  so  we  cannot  regard  it  as  a  new  idea ; 
but  as  the  three  chosen  disciples  came  down  from 
the  mountain  of  vision.  He  said  plainly,  after  speak- 
ing of  the  death  of  John,  whom  He  called  Elijah, 
Likewise  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  suffer  of  themP' 
It  is  true  that  we  are  forbidden  to  regard  any  of 
these  expressions  otherwise  than  as  natural  fore- 
castings  of  the  future  by  one  who  could  shrewdly 
interpret  the  present ;  but  if  spoken  by  Jesus 
they  show  clearly  that  He  had  counted  the  cost  of 
the  part  He  had  chosen,  and  that  the  notion  of 
death,  and  apparently  of  violent  death,  entered  into 
His  conception  of  that  part.  At  all  events,  it  is 
plain  that  this  was  the  notion  which  the  Evangelists 
had  formed  of  the  Messiah's  career  before  they 
wrote. 

Shortly  afterwards  we  find  Him  speaking  more 
definitely  :  Tlie  Son  of  man  shall  he  betrayed  into 
the  hands  of  men  ;  and  they  shall  kill  him.^     Here 

1  St.  Matt.  X.  38  ;  xvi.  24. 
"  xvii.  12.  ^  xvii.  23. 


The  Gospels.  207 


then  we  have  the  two  ideas  of  betrayal  and  of  violent  His  be- 
death.  It  is  not  hard  to  see  that  each  of  these  violent 
ideas  could  be  sustained  by  reference  to  Scripture  ; 
but  the  question  is  whether  either  of  them,  and  cer- 
tainly that  of  betrayal,  was  one  which  was  likely  to 
suggest  itself,  as  a  necessary  element  in  the  Mes- 
sianic character,  toVkny  one  who  was  bent  upon 
finding  a  counterpart,  imaginary  or  real,  to  that 
character  as  it  existed  in  prophecy,  or  upon  com- 
bining the  various  elements  of  it  scattered  through- 
out the  Scriptures.  And  the  most  natural,  not  to 
say  the  only  possible,  answer,  is  that  prior  to  the 
fact  it  was  in  the  highest  degree  improbable. 

This  forewarning  of  betrayal  and  death  was 
repeated  with  additional  particulars  on  the  way 
up  to  Jerusalem  before  the  last  passover,  when 
Jesus  said,  The  Son  of  man  shall  he  betrayed  unto 
the  chief  priests  and  unto  the  scribes,  and  they 
shall  condemn  him  to  death,  and  shall  deliver  him 
to  the  Gentiles,  to  moch,  and  to  scourge,  and  to 
crucify  him :  ^  and  immediately  afterwards  He  said 
to  James  and  John  that  the  Son  of  man  had  come 
to  give  his  life  a  ransom  for  many ;  ^  declaring  not 
only  the  fact,  but  assigning  a  reason  for  the  fact. 
We  find  once  or  twice  subsequently  an  indication 
of  the  same  ideas  of  betrayal  and  of  violent  death 
pervading  the  language  and  the  mind  of  Jesus  ;  so 
that  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that  if  this  was  not 

St.  Matt.  XX.  18,  19.  2  xx.  28. 


2o8  The  Christ  of 


His  own  original  conception  of  the  part  He  had 
assumed,  it  was  at  all  events  regarded  by  the 
Evangelists  as  essential  to  that  part,  not  only  that 
He  should  die  and  be  betraj^ed,  but  should  foretell 
His  betrayal  and  His  death.  We  lay  no  stress 
upon  the  prediction,  except  so  far  as  it  seems  to 
have  been  inherent  in  the  plan  of  the  Evangelists. 

Before,  however,  we  can  form  a  complete  con- 
ception of  their  plan,  there  is  at  least  one  other 
important  point  which  requires  to  be  noticed,  and 
His  resur-  tliis  is  tlic  idea  of  resurrection,  and  of  resurrection 

rection  the  .  nr>-  i-  •  -nm-  c 

third  day  withm  a  detmite  and  given  time,  lioliowing  lor 
the  present  St.  Matthew's  narrative,  we  find  the 
first  indication  of  this  thought  as  early  as  the 
twelfth  chapter,  when,  in  answer  to  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  who  sought  a  sign  of  Him,  Jesus  said,  no 
sign  but  that  of  the  prophet  Jonas  should  be 
given  to  the  men  of  that  generation ;  for  as  he  was 
three  days  and  three  nights  in  the  whale's  belly, 
so  the  Son  of  man  should  be  three  days  and  three 
nights  in  the  heart  of  the  earth  ;  and  imj^lied  that 
His  own  deliverance  should  be  greater  than  that  of 
Jonas.^  Again  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  He  repeats 
the  same  sign.^  We  are  shortly  afterwards  told  that 
from  the  time  of  Peter's  confession  of  Him  as  the 
Christ,  He  began  to  show  unto  His  disciples  that 
He  must  sufi"er,  and  be  killed,  and  be  raised  again 
the  third  day.^     Again,  after  His  transfiguration, 

^  St.  Matt.  xii.  40,  41.  2  ^vi.  4.  '  xvi.  21. 


Lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  209 

He  charges  the  three  disciples  to  tell  the  vision  to 
no  man,  until  the  Son  of  man  he  risen  again  from 
the  dead ;  ^  and  once  more,  shortly  afterwards,  He 
says  again,  Ajid  they  shall  hill  him,  and  the  third 
day  he  shall  he  raised  again.^  In  the  twentieth 
chapter,  as  they  were  going  up  to  Jerusalem  He  says 
once  more,  And  the  third  day  he  shall  rise  again.^ 
And  at  the  last  supper  He  tells  His  disciples,  After 
I  am  risen  again,  I  loill  go  hefore  you  into  Galilee.^ 
That  is  to  say,  according  to  the  first  Gospel,  there 
were  seven  distinct  references  to  a  rising  again  from 
the  dead,  during  the  lifetime  of  Jesus,  to  which  we 
must  add,  from  the  same  source,  the  testimony  of 
the  two  false  witnesses,  that  He  had  said,  /  am 
ahle  to  destroy  the  temple  of  God,  and  to  huild  it  in 
three  days,^  and  the  taunt,  based  on  this  expression 
with  which  He  was  reproached  upon  the  cross,  to- 
gether with  the  application  made  by  the  chief 
priests  and  Pharisees  to  Pilate,  Sir,  ive  remember 
that  that  deceiver  said,  while  he  was  yet  alive, 
After  three  days  I  ivill  rise  again.^  All  this,' it 
must  be  borne  in  mind,  is  in  addition  to  the  Evan- 
gelist's own  narrative  of  the  actual  resurrection  of 
Jesus  from  the  dead.  We  are  surely  justified  in 
saying,  then,  that,  supposing  the  Evangelist  to  have 
sat  down  with  the  intention  of  representing  his 
master  as  the  Christ,  he  had  conceived  the  notion 

1  St.  Matt.  xvii.  9.  2  ^vii.  23.  ^  xx.  19. 

*  xxvi.  32.  5  xxvi.  61.  ^  xxvii.  40,  63. 

P 


tures. 


2  I  o  The  Christ  of  Lect.  v. 

tliat  it  was  indispensable  He  should  rise  from  the 
dead,  and  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  in  order 
that  His  character  and  history  might  correspond 
the  more  accurately  with  what  had  been  written  of 
it  in  the  Scriptures. 
notsuff-  But  where  was  there  anything  written  of  it  in 

the  Scrip-  tlic  Scripturcs,  which,  prior  to  the  invention  of  the 
story,  could  by  any  possibility  have  suggested  the 
invention  of  it  ?  So  much  so  is  this  a  fair  and 
reasonable  question,  that  it  is  not  seldom,  I  fancy, 
difficult  for  us  to  harmonise  our  theories  of  Scripture 
and  its  fulfilment  with  what  is  stated  on  this  subject 
in  the  apostolical  writings.  Our  difficulty  rather  is 
to  determine  whether,  and  to  what  extent,  there  was 
any  properly  so  called  fulfilment  of  the  several  pass- 
ages in  the  Old  Testament  which  are  applied  to  the 
Lord's  resurrection  in  the  New.  Our  tendency  is  to 
vindicate  the  words  of  David  and  others  from  any 
possible  direct  reference  to,  if  not  from  any  legiti- 
mate bearing  on,  the  subject.  We  find  it  somewhat 
of  an  onerous  task  to  save  the  credit  of  the  ajDostles 
in  their  treatment  of  these  Scriptures,  and  feel  that 
we  can  only  do  it  by  an  elastic  use  of  the  Psalms 
and  Prophets.  But  to  whatsoever  extent  this  is  the 
case — and  it  certainly  is  so  sometimes  and  to  some 
extent — precisely  to  the  same  extent  is  it  a  measure 
of  the  likelihood  there  was  of  such  Scriptures  be- 
cominof  to  such  men  the  suggestive  origin  of  the 
story  tliey  pi'opagated.      And  yet  it  is  oljvious  that, 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  21  \ 

sliort  of  the  fact,  they  not  only  had,  but  could  have 
had,  no  materials  out  of  which  to  construct  such  a 
story  but  these  very  Scriptures  themselves. 

The  Evangelists  were  men  who  were,  first  of  all, 
concerned  to  make  their  portrait  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
correspond  outwardly  and  in  detail  with  that  which 
they  found  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures  of  the  Messiah. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say,  that  if  death  was  one  of 
the  features  that  might  have  occurred  to  the  minds 
of  attentive  students  as  essential  to  that  character, 
it  was  absolutely  impossible  that  resurrection  from 
the  dead  the  third  day  should  have  done  so.  But 
this  we  find  consistently  and  unvaryingly  to  have 
been  the  case — notably  so  with  the  synoptical  Evan- 
gelists ;  manifestly  so  with  St.  John  likewise.  It 
was  indispensable  to  the  notion  they  had  formed  of 
the  Messiah  when  they  sat  down  to  write,^  that  He 
should  suffer  and  die,  and  rise  again  from  the  dead 
the  third  day.  However  their  several  narratives 
may  vary,  they  do  not  vary  in  these  respects.  For 
some  cause  or  other  they  had  learnt  to  interpret  the 
ancient  Scriptures  thus.     There  was  and  could  be 

1  It  is  hardly  needful  to  observe  that  this  position  is  independ- 
ent of  the  question,  who  may  have  written  the  Gospels — whether 
they  were  the  premeditated  productions  of  the  men  whose  names 
they  bear,  or  the  spontaneous  accretion  of  accumulated  Christian 
tradition,  as  some  would  have  us  suppose.  In  the  latter  case  the 
phenomena  presented  would  be  virtually  miraculous  ;  in  the  former 
they  would  be  fairly  open  to  the  observations  in  the  text,  whether 
the  actual  writers  were  known  or  not. 


2 1 2  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

no  question  as  to  the  verdict  of  these  Scriptures.  All 
men  knew,  or  could  ascertain  with  sufficient  accu- 
racy, what  was  written  in  these  Scriptures.  To 
those  who  agreed  with  and  to  those  who  differed 
from  themselves  they  were  a  recognisable  standard 
of  appeal.  If  the  correspondence  they  alleged  did 
exist,  it  was  at  least  remarkable ;  if  it  did  not,  the 
idea  could  be  at  once  rejected.  Every  one  knew 
and  was  capable  of  appreciating  the  broad  merits  of 
the  case.  One  thing  we  can  see  and  determine  for 
ourselves — that  it  was  absolutely  impossible,  or  at 
least  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely,  that  these  exist- 
ing Scriptures  should  have  suggested  the  invention 
of  the  story  of  Jesus  to  the  Evangelists,  if  it  was  an 
invention. 

Tlie  next  point,  therefore,  that  we  have  to  deter- 
mine is  the  probability  of  the  main  features  of  the 
history  of  Jesus,  supposing  them  to  have  occurred 
as  they  no  doubt  did,  having  suggested  to  the  Evan- 
The  parai-  gcHsts  the  parallel  they  drew  between  His  character 
immedi-     and  history  and  the  prophetic  portraiture.      And 
gScrify   liere  it  must  be  observed,  that  we  must  leave  out 
tilem^-'^'^     altogether  the  incident  of  His  resurrection,  because, 
selves.       •£  ^]^g^^  ^yjjg  jj^  i^oX,  it  chaugcs  at  once  the  whole 
character  of  the  argument.      On  this  hypothesis  we 
are  bound  to  assume  tliat  the  incident  of  the  resur- 
rection was  the  imaginary  creation  of  the  Evan- 
gelists.    Whatever  accident,  in  fact,  may  have  sug- 
gested it,  the  only  Messianic  materials  they  had  to 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  2 1 3 

work  iij^on,  with  which  it  must  be  made  to  corre- 
spond, were  a  few  scattered  and  obscure  alhisions  in 
the  Psahns  and  Prophets.  And  here  the  improba- 
bility is  precisely  as  great  as  it  was  before,  that  the 
narrative  of  the  prophet  Jonas  should  have  sug- 
gested to  four  independent  writers,  or,  regarding 
the  synoptics  as  essentially  one,  to  even  two  writers 
so  independent  as  they  and  St.  John  must  be  con- 
sidered, the  story^of  the  Lord's  resurrection  the  third 
day.  And  yet,  if  we  except  some  obscure  words  in 
the  prophet  Hosea,^  there  is  no  other  Scripture 
authority  or  allusion  to  which  its  origin  can  possibly 
be  referred.  And  yet  that  origin  must,  from  the 
nature  of  the  case,  be  distinctly  traceable  to  Scrip- 
ture as  the  only  source  from  which  the  suggestion 
could  have  been  derived. 

The  same  may,  to  a  great  extent,  be  said  of  the  The 

triumphant 

triumphant  entry  of  Jesus  into  Jerusalem,  of  His  entry  into 
being  ordained  as  the  future  judge  of  the  world,  of  and  other' 
His  being  crucified  with  two  thieves,  of  His  raiment  His  his- 
being  parted  by  the  soldiers,  and  the  like,   about  °'^' 
which  the  several  Evangelists  are  agreed,  or  at  all 
events  are  not  at  variance.     If  there  was  not  some- 
thing, in  fact,  answering  to  these  various  circum- 
stances, there  was  unquestionably  not  sufficient  in 
any  of  the  several  Scriptures,  or  in  all  of  them  com- 
bined, to  suggest  the  invention  of  the  incidents  to 
the  writers.     For  what  was  there  to  guide  them  to 

^  Hosea  vi.  2. 


2  14  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

tlie  combination  or  selection  of  these  severcal  Scrip- 
tures ? 

And  certainly,  in  the  case  of  Jesus  Himself,  it 
was  manifestly  out  of  and  beyond  His  power  as  a 
man  to  bring  about  the  correspondence  alleged  be- 
tween some  of  these  incidents  and  the  Scriptures 
to  which  they  are  referred ;  as,  for  example,  His 
triumphant  entry  into  Jerusalem,  the  parting  of  His 
raiment,  the  piercing  of  His  side,  and  the  like. 

AVe  are  constrained,  therefore,  to  treat  these  and 
similar  incidents  as  if  they  were  the  mere  invention 
of  the  Gospel-writers,  and  not  part  of  the  original 
plan  of  Jesus.  And,  treating  them  thus,  we  are  at 
liberty,  nay  rather  we  are  bound,  to  ask,  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  the  Scriptures  alone  before,  that  is  to  say 
without  the  facts,  could  have  suggested  the  narrative 
of  the  facts  ?  And  is  it  possible  that  to  this  question 
there  can  be  in  the  mind  of  any  fair  and  unbiassed 
critic  or  student  any  answer  but  one  ? 

If,  therefore,  looking  at  the  matter  in  this  light, 
we  may  assume  the  several  incidents  to  have  been 
facts,  the  further  question  is  not  unreasonable,  and 
occurs  naturally.  Is  it  likely  that,  supposing  the 
incidents  to  have  taken  place  in  succession, 
the  correspondence  between  them  and  the  Scrip- 
tures would  have  immediately  suggested  itself 
to  the  minds  of  the  disciples  ?  And  I  think  we 
must  answer  No.  St.  John  does  indeed  tell  us, 
with  reference  to  tlie  resurrection,  that  their  slow- 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  215 

ness  to  believe  it  arose  from  the  fact  that  as  yet  they  The  dis- 
hiew  not  the  Scripture,  that  He  must  rise  again  from  slowness 
the  dead}  We  involuntarily  ask  What  Scripture  ? 
and  we  may  rest  assured  that  a  remark  like  this  was 
not  thrown  in  to  give  a  greater  appearance  of  con- 
sistency or  of  naturalness  to  the  conduct  of  the  dis- 
ciples, but  was  expressive  of  their  real  attitude  of 
mind  on  many  similar  occasions.  It  was  not  before 
the  fact  that  the  similarity  suggested  itself,  it  was 
not  immediately  after  the  fact  even  that  it  at  once 
occurred  to  them.  The  fact,  therefore,  was  not 
created  by  the  similarity,  but  much  more  the  simi- 
larity by  the  fact.  But  when  the  full  effect  of  the 
combined  whole  was  borne  in  upon  their  minds  by 
the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  then  and  then  only  it 
was  seen,  in  the  light  of  His  presence,  that  there  was 
an  inexplicable  harmony  between  the  connected 
whole  of  their  Master's  life,  the  incidents  of  His 
personal  history,  and  the  majesty  of  His  Divine  cha- 
racter, and  the  portrait  sketched  generations  and  ages 
before  by  many  writers  in  various  times  and  under 
varying  circumstances,  which  forcibly  brought  home 
the  conviction  to  their  minds  that  the  Jesus  whom 
they  had  known  and  served  and  loved  was  in  truth 
the  promised  Messiah. 

Let  it  then  be  clearly  understood  what  is  the  ^he 

-,       .  positio" 

position  we  desire  to  assume,  and  wlint  are  the  eon-  assumd. 

elusions  we  would  base  u})0ii  it.      TJieie  is  and  can  conclu- 
sions 

^   St.  John  XX.  ,9.  drawn. 


The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 


be  no  question  that  at  and  before  the  time  of  our 
Lord  a  Christ  of  some  kind  was  anticipated  solely 
in  consequence  of  the  popular  interpretation  passed 
upon  the  Scriptures.  Prior,  however,  to  the  fact  of 
His  appearance,  not  only  had  no  such  Christ  been 
anticipated,  but  it  was  impossible  to  anticipate  such 
a  Christ  as  He  is  represented  to  have  been.  Either, 
therefore,  there  must  have  been  a  substantial  basis  of 
historical  truth  in  the  Gospel  representation  of  the 
Christ,  or  else  it  must  have  been  an  imaginary  cre- 
ation. If  it  was  an  imaginary  creation,  then 
the  only  materials  out  of  which  it  was  pos- 
sible for  the  Evangelists  to  create  it  are  before  us, 
as  they  were  before  them  and  before  the  men  of 
their  time.  We  know,  however,  that  there  is  no 
trace  of  any  such  conception  having  been  in  exist- 
ence, and  we  are  competent  judges  of  the  actual  im- 
possibility there  was  of  this  conception  being  created 
out  of  the  materials  that  did  exist. 
The  To  take,  for  example,  one  single  instance.     St. 


oTuiT^     Matthew   alone    of    the    Evangelists    records    the 

slaughter 

of  the  >^xciug 

children. 


slaughter  of  the  children  at  Bethlehem,  nor  is  it  men- 
tioned by  Josephus  or  any  other  historian  of  the  age. 
We  have  it  therefore  solely  on  the  authority  of  St. 
Matthew  ;  but  he  apparently  records  it  for  the  sake 
of  pointing  out  the  correspondence  between  it  and 
a  certain  prophecy  of  Jeremiah,  which  is  no  doubt 
extremely  slender.  If,  therefore,  the  writer  invented 
this  story,  he  must  have  done  so  for  the  sake  of  this 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  2 1 7 

very  slender  correspondence,  and  for  no  other 
imaginable  reason.  Surely  then  we  are  not  inca- 
pable of  returning  an  answer  to  the  question,  Was 
it  possible,  prior  to  the  fact  related,  that  the  mere 
existence  of  these  words  in  Jeremiah  should  have 
suggested  even  to  the  imagination  of  St.  Matthew 
the  invention  of  the  story  he  relates  ?  Given  the 
occurrence  of  the  fact,  one  can  partly  understand  the 
application  of  the  prophecy  suggesting  itself,  but  one 
cannot  understand  the  prophecy  alone  giving  occa- 
sion to  the  invention  of  the  alleged  fact.  It  is  at 
least  reasonal^le  to  ask,  Is  it  more  probable  that  the 
story  should  be  true  or  that  it  should  have  originated 
in  this  way  ?  For  it  could  have  originated  in  no 
other. 

And  it  is  the  same  with  the  great  bulk  of  the  The  Gospel 

narrative 

Scriptures  which  are  alleged  to  have  been  fulfilled  substan- 
in  the  Christ  of  the  Evangelists.  We  are  constrained, 
therefore,  to  reject  the  notion  that  the  Christ  whom 
they  depicted  was  an  imaginary  creation  of  their 
own,  and  are  thrown  back  upon  the  conviction  that 
there  was  a  substantial  basis  of  historical  truth  in 
their  representation  of  the  Christ.  And,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  this  substantial  basis  of  historical  truth  can- 
not be  doubted. 

Given,  then,  this  undeniable  foundation  of  fact 
in  the  Evangelists,  the  question  next  arises.  How 
much  of  their  narrative  is  true  ?  And  here  we  must  of 
course  reject  everything  of  a  supernatural  character. 


2 1 8  The  Christ  of 


and  true  howevei  WG  may  account  for  it  consistently  with  their 
dinate  de-  general  reputation  for  truth,  which  it  is  difficult  to 
disallow.  It  must  be  granted,  for  example,  that  we 
know  nothino;  of  the  character  and  life  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  except  what  is  fairly  deducible  from  the 
Gospel  narrative.  The  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ 
either  was  what  it  is  represented  to  have  been  in  the 
first  three  Gospels,  or  this  is  how  the  writers  of  those 
Gospels  conceived  of  it.  In  the  latter  case,  they 
must  be  allowed  the  credit  of  whatever  estimate  is 
formed  of  that  teaching.  On  the  same  principle, 
moreover,  we  cannot  doubt  the  main  facts  of  the  his- 
tory of  Jesus  ;  as,  for  instance.  His  birth  of  humble 
parentage,  the  comparative  seclusion  of  His  early 
years,  the  brief  duration  of  His  ministry,  the  gene- 
ral character  of  it,  the  purpose  and  aim  of  His 
conduct,  the  opposition  it  excited,  the  eff'ect  it  pro- 
duced, the  manner  in  which  the  crisis  was  precipi- 
tated, the  circumstances  of  His  death  and  burial, 
the  incidents  which  were  believed  to  have  followed 
it.  Of  all  this  we  know  nothing,  but  A\'ha-t  may 
legitimately  be  drawn  from  the  gospel  narrative, 
just  as  we  should  arrive  at  a  conclusion  about  facts 
from  any  other  narrative. 

It  follows,  therefore,  that  this  narrative  may 
legitimately  be  suffered  to  l)e;ir  witness  to  itself  in 
its  unmiraculous  parts,  wherever  coincidences  can  be 
discovered  which  cannot  be  referred  to  design  or 
whenever  statements  arc  made  for  which  no  hidden 


lect.  V.  The  Gospels.  2 1 9 

motive  can  be  detected.     And  whenever,  as  in  the 
case  ah^eady  referred  to,  no  motive  can  be  detected 
but  a  desii-e  to  make  the  narrative  correspond  with 
prophecy,  we   may  fairly   compare   the  antecedent  Compari- 
im probability  of  the  fact  with  the  improbability  of  tecedent 
the  particular  fact  under  the  circumstances  having  biiities. 
been  suggested  merely  by  the  prophecy. 

For  example,  is  it  more  likely  that  Hosea's  words, 
"  I  called  my  son  out  of  Egypt,"  should  have  sug- 
gested to  St.  Matthew  the  narrative  of  the  descent 
into  Egypt,  or  that  that  descent  should  really  have 
occurred  ?  Is  it  more  likely  that  St.  John's 
narrative  of  the  piercing  of  the  side  should  have 
been  suggested  by  the  words  in  Zechariah,  or  that 
the  side  should  really  have  been  pierced  ?  And  then, 
when  this  comparison  in  isolated  instances  is  found 
to  preponderate  largely  in  favour  of  the  events  re- 
lated, we  are  in  a  better  position  to  estimate  rightly 
the  cumulative  effect  of  the  whole  combined.  There 
can  be  no  question,  for  example,  as  to  the  betrayal 
and  death  of  Jesus  Christ.  There  can  be  no  ques- 
tion that  what  is  alleged  to  have  been  said  of  those 
events  in  the  Prophets  was  insufficient  to  suggest 
their  occurrence  to  the  minds  of  the  Evangelists. 
There  is  no  question  that  they  could  not  have  been 
brought  about  by  any  arrangement  between  Jesus 
and  His  disciples. 

"VVe  are  left  therefore  in  this  position,  that  we 
have    before   us   the  events  as  real  historic    occur- 


2  20  The  Christ  of  lect.  v. 

rences  of  unquestionable  authenticity,  and  we  have 
also  before  us  the  passages  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
prophets  which  are  known  to  be  of  far  higher 
antiquity  than  the  narrative  of  these  events,  and  to 
which  they  are  referred.  We  are  consequently  able 
to  judge  of  the  degree  of  correspondence  between 
the  two.  That  there  is  a  correspondence  is  undeni- 
able. That  what  correspondence  there  is  should  be 
the  effect  of  previous  arrangement  on  the  part  of 
the  prophets  is  impossible.  That  it  should  be  the 
result  of  the  manipulation  of  facts  on  the  part  of  the 
disciples  is  likewise  impossible,  where  there  is  no 
other  ground  to  doubt  the  facts,  and  where  this  cor- 
respondence is  insufficient  to  have  created  them. 
The  descent  into  Egypt,  the  murder  of  the  inno- 
cents, the  residence  at  Nazareth,  the  removal  to 
Capernaum,  the  method  of  teaching  by  parables,  our 
Lord's  love  of  retirement.  His  betrayal  by  Judas,  the 
circumstances  of  His  death  on  the  cross,  the  parting 
of  His  raiment,  the  piercing  of  His  side, — these  and 
a  hundred  other  things  can  neither  singly  nor  collec- 
tively have  been  originated  by  any  study  of  the 
prophets,  nor  have  derived  from  them  any  signij&- 
cance  which  they  would  not  possess  as  facts  apart 
from  the  narrative  of  the  Gospels.  The  correspond- 
ence between  them,  as  it  was  not  suggested  by  the 
Prophets,  so  neither  was  it  created  by  the  Evan- 
gelists. If  it  exists  at  all,  and  to  Avhatever  degree 
it  exists,  its  existence  is  independent  of  both. 


The  Gospels. 


And  therefore  tlie  question,  and  tlie  only  ques-  How  are 
tion,  for  us  to  determine  is,  What  is  the  correct  signi-  be  inter- 
ficance  and  interpretation  of  this  correspondence,  ^"^  *^^  ' 
being  such  as  it  is,  neither  more  nor  less  ?  Is  it  a 
pure  accident  ?  Is  it  one  of  the  freaks  of  chance  ? 
Is  there  no  meaning  in  it  whatever  ?  Is  it  as  pur- 
poseless and  as  meaningless  as  the  formations  of  the 
hoar-frost  on  the  window-pane,  or  the  marvellous 
combinations  of  the  kaleidoscope  ?  Or  is  there  a  clue 
to  its  meaning  ?  Does  the  Gospel  narrative  record 
the  one  event  in  history  which  is  the  interpretation 
of  all  history,  and  which  being  so,  was  transacted 
on  a  plan  of  which  indications  had  been  given  in 
the  prophets  and  in  the  history  of  their  times  ?  Are 
we  right  in  inferring  the  existence  of  a  purpose 
which  began  to  be  carried  out  of  old,  and  which  in 
the  fulness  of  the  times  was  completed  ?  And  was 
it  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  this  purpose,  if  it 
existed,  could  not  be  anticipated  nor  discovered  till 
it  w^as  sufficiently  matured,  but  that  when  it  was 
adequately  fulfilled  it  revealed  itself?  This  is  at 
least  a  theory  which  would  appear  to  be  consistent 
with  the  facts,  if  indeed  there  is  any  other  by  which 
the  facts  as  they  exist  can  be  explained. 

At  aU  events,  we  are  warranted  in  saying  that 
unless  there  is  a  method  more  consonant  with  reason 
to  be  discovered  of  accounting  for  the  broad  and 
patent  Gospel  facts,  the  historic  existence  of  the 


2  22  The  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  Lect.  v. 

Christ-idea  for  ages  before  Christ  came,  and  the 
alleged  realisation  of  that  idea  in  Him,  is  no  slight 
indication  of  its  origin,  and  may  be  used  as  a  solid 
foundation  on  which  to  rear  the  edifice  we  have 
yet  to  build. 


LECTURE    VI. 


THE    CHRIST  OF  THE  ACTS. 


ndvTsg  o^v  sho^dsdr](tav  xai  liiiya\{jv&if\6av,  ov  5/'  aurojv,  ri  ruv  ioyoov 
avrdjv,  ri  rrn  oixaioT^dy/ag,  ■^g  xarsi^ydffavTo,  dXXd  dia  rou  hXrjfia- 
Tog  avTOV.  Ka/  Tj/J^iTg  oSv  did  6s7.7]/j,aTog  avrov  sv  Xgiffruj  'Irjaov 
x-Xridevng,  ob  3/'  iavrZv  hi^aioviMida,  ohbi  did  rrig  rjfLsrs^ag  ffofiag,  95 
ffuvsasug,  ?j  ihsi^tiag^  ri  sgyuv,  ow  xani^yaffd/J^sda  h  osiotyiti  xa^hiag' 
dXXd  did  TTig  'xisnug,  di'  ^g  Tavrag  rou  kt'  aiuvog  6  'Travrox^drup 
&ihg  sdiKaiudiy  V  sffru  yj  do^a  tig  rovg  aluvag  rut  aiuvuv.    'A/a^p. 

Clem.  Rom. 

'TfMiTg  o^v  Tr\v  Tgav'rddeiav  dvaXa^ovrsg  dvaxriffaffdi  saurovg  ev 
'TTiffTii,  0  sdTiv  od^  rou  xv^i'ou,  xal  iv  dyd'Trrj,  0  sariv  alft.a  'Iriaou 
X^ierov. — Ignat.  ad  Trail. 


LECTURE    VI. 

For  he  mightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and  that  jin<WiC?!/,  shewing  hy  the 
Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  Christ. — Acts  xviii.  28. 

We  have  thus  far  been  led  to  see  that  there  were  The  posi- 
undoubtedly  anticipations  of  a  coming  Christ  among  present 
the  Jewish  people  at  and  long  before  the  commence-  '^"^^ 
ment  of  our  era ;  that  these  anticipations  were  pro- 
duced by  the  influence  of  the  Scriptures,  and  by 
them  alone ;  that  they  were  more  or  less  indefinite 
and  probably  inconsistent,  but  that  the  portrait  of 
Jesus  presented  in  the  Gospels  could  not,  by  any 
possibility,  have  owed  its  origin  to  the  scattered  and 
fragmentary  sketches  of  a  Messiah  to  be  found  in 
the  Old  Testament,  if  for  no  other  reason,  at  least 
for  this,  that  in  many  cases  it  is  not  by  any  means 
clear  that  they  referred,  or  were  understood  to  refer, 
to  a  Messiah ;  that  oftentimes,  prior  to  the  corre- 
sponding facts,  there  was  no  possibility  that  they 
should  be  so  understood ;  that  the  facts,  therefore, 
alleged  to  correspond,  could  not  have  been  suggested 
by  the  particular  Scriptures,  or  invented  in  order  to 
correspond  with  them ;  that  this  is  more  especially 
the  case  in  points  of  minute  detail,  as,  for  example, 
Q 


The  Christ  of 


the  descent  into  Egypt,  the  casting  lots  for  the 
raiment,  and  the  like  ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  though 
after  the  occurrence  of  these  and  similar  incidents  it 
is  conceivable  that  they  would  make  a  deep  im- 
pression on  the  disciples'  minds  when  viewed  in 
relation  to  the  several  Scriptures,  yet  it  is  not  by  any 
means  upon  such  minute  details  that  the  claims  of 
Jesus  must  ultimately  rest,  but  much  rather  upon 
the  broad  and  patent  facts  of  His  history,  the  nature 
and  far-sighted  and  deep-searching  truth,  and  exqui- 
site beauty  of  His  teaching,  the  purity  and  subli- 
mity of  His  moral  character,  the  marvellous  wisdom 
of  His  conduct,  the  unique  circumstances  of  His 
death,  and  the  cumulative  evidence,  when  all  things 
are  considered,  for  His  resurrection  ;  that  while, 
however,  these  features  of  His  character  may  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  as  much  beyond  the  Evangelists'  powers 
of  invention  as  the  prophetic  correspondences,  it  is 
even  more  improbable  that  they  should  have  recog- 
nised in  these  features  the  true  realisation  of  the 
prophetic  ideal,  or  that  such  a  Jesus  as  they  repre- 
sented should  have  been  the  kind  of  Messiah  they 
would  have  chosen  to  depict ; — that,  in  fact,  it  is  no 
less  impossible  that  His  character  should  have  been 
the  outgrowth  of  Scriptural  study,  than  that  the 
minor  incidents  of  His  history  should  have  been 
suggested  by  the  language  of  the  prophets ;  and 
that  consequently  there  is  a  presumptive  reason  for 
accepting,  not  only  His  character  as  historically  true. 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  227 

but  likewise  the  detailed  incidents  of  His  history  as 
real  occurrences ;  and  that,  having  done  so,  we  are 
in  a  position  to  attach  what  weight  we  please  to  the 
correspondences  between  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the 
several  passages  of  Scripture  in  which  they  have 
been  traced ;  but  that,  as  we  cannot  deny  the  prior 
existence  of  the  Scriptures,  so  neither  have  we  any 
valid  ground  for  rejecting  the  incidents  as  real,  or 
for  doubting  antecedently  their  possible  relation  to 
the  Scriptures. 

Taking,  then,  the  Grospel  portraiture  of  Christ  as 
resting,  to  a  certain  extent,  upon  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament,  but  as  a  creation  which  it  was 
impossible  should  have  grown  out  of  them,  and  taking 
it  also  as  representing  historically  the  earliest  con- 
ception of  the  actual  Christ,  we  pass  on  to  review 
another  aspect  of  Him — that,  namely,  which  is  pre- 
sented to  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 

And  here  it  must  be  understood  that  we  do  not  The  date 
profess  to  decide  upon  the  relative  date  of  this  book  Acts  left 
and  any  one  or  all  of  the  Gospels.     It  will  probably  °^^"" 
be  allowed  that,  whenever  it  was  written,  one  Gospel 
at  any  rate  was  already  in  existence.     But  what  we 
mean  is  this,  that  whenever  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
and  any  or  all  of  the  Gospels  were  written,  the  period 
of  time  described  in  the  book  of  the  Acts  was  cer- 
tainly subsequent  to  that  depicted  in  the  Gospels. 
They  represented  an  effort  to  reproduce  an  earlier 
time,  were  intended  and  understood  to  refer  to  an 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 


earlier  time,  and  so  far  may  themselves  be  regarded 
historically  as  expressing  an  earlier  conception  of 
the  Christ. 

Again,  we  have  no  wish  to  assume  the  actual 
historic  accuracy  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  As 
before,  we  must  disregard  altogether  its  supernatural 
statements.  But  when  there  is  no  deliberate  mo- 
tive conceivable  for  misrepresentation,  we  may  hold 
ourselves  at  liberty  to  acquit  the  writer  of  an  inten- 
tion to  misrepresent. 
Its  general  And  ccxtainly  we  have  a  right  to  regard  this 
worthiness,  book  as  tlic  earliest  and  the  only  existing  attempt 
to  record  the  history  of  the  first  years  of  the  Chris- 
tian movement.  All  that  we  can  ascertain  of  the 
earliest  phases  of  Christian  life  must  be  derived  from 
this  book ;  so  that  if,  in  its  broad  features,  we  may 
not  trust  it,  we  are  without  the  means  of  arriving  at 
any  certain  knowledge  of  the  earliest  history  of  the 
Christian  church.  There  is  no  question,  however, 
that  to  this,  and  to  a  much  further  extent,  we  may 
fully  trust  it. 
The  For  example,  this  book  professes  to  record  the 

fairly  origin  and  earliest  fortunes  of  a  society  that  was 
fromTt.  ^  gathered  together,  first  in  Palestine,  and  afterwards 
in  Cyprus,  Asia  Minor,  and  Greece,  in  consequence 
of  the  preaching  of  some  of  the  original  disciples  of 
Jesus,  and  their  converts,  who  prochximed  Him  as 
the  Messiah.  In  the  first  instance,  it  was  always 
the  Jews  to  whom  tliis  proclamation  was  made.     In 


lect.  VI.  The  Ads.  229 

some  cases  it  was  made  successfully,  and  the  Jews 
were  baptised  as  believers  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and 
were  enrolled  among  the  members  of  the  new  society. 
More  frequently,  however,  the  Jews  manifested  a  de- 
termined opposition  to  the  idea  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ ;  and  then  the  maintainers  of  this  doctrine 
proclaimed  it  to  the  Gentiles,  and  in  many  cases 
with  much  greater  and  with  conspicuous  success. 
I  think  we  may  fairly  say  that  there  is  no  misrepre- 
sentation of  the  matter  as  thus  stated,  and  not  the 
slightest  reason  to  doubt  that  the  earliest  known 
development  of  the  Christian  church  took  place  in 
this  manner,  as  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  leads  us  to 
suppose.  At  all  events,  whenever  the  book  was 
written,  this  was  the  only  account  which  the  Chris- 
tian church  could  give  of  its  own  origin,  or  the  only 
account  which  it  seemed  probable  would  commend 
itself  to  the  Christian  society. 

And  there  certainly  is  no  doubt  that  the  state  An  earlier 

•11-1  •  11        condition 

of  things  not  only  described  111  but  witnessed  to  by  pre-sup- 
the  existence  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  pre- 
supposes an  earlier  condition,  which  is  either  that 
of  the  Gospels  or  such  as  the  Gospels  have  at- 
tempted to  describe.  That  is  to  say,  the  Acts 
could  not  have  been  written  without  the  previous 
foundation  of  the  personal  history  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth.  Putting  the  most  extreme  case,  that 
the  book  was  a  pure  romance,  its  very  existence 
pre-supposes    the    existence    of    another   romance, 


230  The  Christ  of 


which  must  be  that  of  the  Gospels  or  like  that 
of  the  Gospels.     It  pre-supposes  the  existence  of 
the  romance  of  the  life  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
The  Acts  It   is,   liowcver,    likewise   impossible   that   the 

Acts  of  the  Apostles  can  have  grown  out  of  the 


did  not 
grow  out 

Gospels.  Gosj^el  narrative  as  we  now  have  it.  Granting  the 
existence  of  the  four  Gospels  as  they  are  now,  it 
is  beyond  the  power  of  human  ingenuity  to  have 
constructed  on  their  basis  such  a  sequel  as  the 
history  of  the  Acts  presents  to  us.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  construction  or  composition  of 
these  Gospels  to  have  suggested  a  continuation 
like  that  supplied  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  It 
expresses  a  conception  as  entirely  original  as  they 
are  themselves.  Just  as  it  was  impossible  for  the 
Gospel  portraiture  of  Christ  to  have  been  con- 
structed out  of  the  materials  supplied  by  the  pro- 
phetic Messiah,  so  was  it  impossible  for  the  Gospel 
portraiture  of  Christ  to  have  originated  the  con- 
ception expressed  by  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
The  book  has  therefore  the  weight  and  importance, 
so  far,  of  an  independent  witness  to  Christ.  We 
cannot  regard  the  history  as  pure  romance.  No  one 
proposes  to  do  so.  In  its  ordinary  features  it  is 
entitled  to  the  credit  of ._  ordinary  history,  and 
therefore  its  testimony  to  Christ  is  in  addition  to 
and  independent  of  that  of  the  Gospels,  or  at  all 
events  of  three  of  them. 

But  if  there  is  any  statement  in  which  we  may 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  231 

trust  the  writer  of  the  Acts,  it  is  in  the  fact  that 
the  early  disciples  proclaimed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  as 
the  Clirist.  There  cau  be  no  question  whatever 
about  this.  The  very  name  Christian,  which  at- 
tached to  the  early  followers  of  Jesus,  and  has 
continued  to  attach  to  their  successors  ever  since, 
is  conclusive  proof  that  they  identified  Him  with 
the  promised  Messiah.  The  very  name  Christianity, 
which  is  our  greatest  glory  and  our  highest  problem 
now-a-days,  is  an  indissoluble  bond  between  us  and 
the  early  church  at  Antioch,  as  it  was  between 
that  and  the  known  anticipations  of  the  Jewish 
people  and  the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

As,  however,  the  author  of  the  third  Gospel  was  The 

probable 

apparently  the  author  also  of  the  Acts,  there  can  be  author. 
no  question  as  to  the  identity  of  the  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels  with  the  Jesus  of  the  Acts.  And  as  ante- 
cedently there  was  no  reason  whatever  why  the 
history  of  the  third  Gospel  should  develop  into  the 
history  of  the  Acts — as  no  one  could  have  predicted 
or  imagined  beforehand,  from  any  one  of  the  other 
Gospels,  or  from  this,  that  such  would  be  its  de- 
velopment—  there  is  perhaps  an  additional  pre- 
sumption of  general  credibility  attaching  to  the 
history  of  the  Acts  and  to  that  of  the  third  Gospel, 
from  the  fact  of  the  same  person  having  been  the 
author  of  both.  If  his  history  of  the  first  years  of 
the  early  church  is  generally  trustworthy,  then  the 
greater  deference  is  probably  due  to  his  narrative 


232  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

of  the  life  of  Jesus ;  or,  at  all  events,  we  know  from 
him  the  conditions  under  which  Jesus  was  pro- 
claimed and  accepted  as  the  Messiah,  for  they 
must  have  been  substantially  those  under  which 
He  is  presented  to  us  in  the  third  Gospel. 

If,  however,  there  is,  as  we  have  seen,  an  ante- 
cedent improbability  that  such  a  general  portraiture 
as  he  has  given  should  have  been  the  invention  of 
the  writer,  and  a  yet  further  improbability  that 
the  history  he  has  given  of  Jesus  should  be  followed 
by  an  imaginary  sequel  like  that  of  the  Acts,  or 
that  such  a  sequel  as  that  of  the  Acts  should  have 
been  developed  out  of  it,  then  we  may  not  un- 
reasonably infer  that  his  later  treatise  is  entitled  to 
a  degree  of  independent  consideration  and  deference, 
seeing  that,  if  not  in  this  way,  at  least  in  some  other, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  belief  did  gain  ground  and 
spread  abroad  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  was  the 
Christ. 

We  have  to  take,  then,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 

as  the  earliest  known  record  of  the  spread  of  this 

belief,  and  as  a  record  which  may  in  the  main  be 

trusted. 

P^,  ,  And  it  appears  from  this  record  that  the  oriojinal 

birthplace  •'•■'•  "-' 

of  the  new  centre  of  the  belief  and  the  place  where  it  was  first 

religion. 

propagated  was  Jerusalem.  There  is  no  sufficient 
reason  to  doubt  this.  But  it  is  certainly  very 
important.  According  to  the  same  writer,  one  of 
the  last  directions  given  by  Jesus  was  that  those 


The  Acts 
entitled  to 
independ- 
ent consi- 
deration. 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  233 

who  were  intrusted  with  His  message  were  to 
preach  in  His  name  and  among  all  nations,  be- 
ginning at  Jerusalem.  Unexpectedly,  and  perhaps 
in  a  manner  unintended  by  the  speaker  and  un- 
noticed by  the  writer,  both  conditions  were  fulfilled 
at  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  there  were  gathered 
together  and  dwelling  at  Jerusalem  devout  Jews 
out  of  every  nation  under  heaven,  as  there  very 
probably  would  be.  It  was  doubtless  fresh  in  the 
recollection  of  many  that  but  six  weeks  before  a 
notable  execution  of  malefactors  had  taken  place  in 
the  city,  at  which  a  young  man  who  had  achieved 
a  remarkable  notoriety  in  a  remarkable  manner  had 
met  with  his  death,  owing  to  the  jealousy  of  the 
priests  in  consequence  of  his  extravagant  preten- 
sions. All  this,  according  to  the  writer,  was  dis- 
tinctly stated  by  Peter  in  his  address  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  And  whether  or  not  it  was  stated  by 
Peter,  the  facts  were  unquestionably  known  and 
could  not  be  disputed. 

But  the  marvel  is  that  there  was  no  disposition  The  death 
to  hide  them.     According  to  the  writer,  they  were  one  of  the 
thrown  in  the  teeth  of  the  audience.     And  it  must  facts^pro- 
be  remembered  that  all  these  people  had  exactly ""  ^""^  ' 
those  notions  of  the  Messiah,  whatever  they  w^re, 
which  were  prevalent  at  that  time,  and  none  others. 
They  had  then  nothing  whatever  to  rest  on  but  the 
declarations  of  the   Scriptures,  the  popular  antici- 
pations based  on  them,   and  whatever  change  of 


2  34  Th,e  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

sentiment  may  possibly  have  been  produced  by  the 
preaching  of  John  and  the  ministry  of  Jesus. 

On  this  foundation,  and  on  no  other,  any  convic- 
tion of  Jesus  being  the  Christ  had  to  be  based.  The 
outward  features  of  His  person  and  life  were  most 
unpromising.  But  there  is  no  trace  of  their  ever 
having  been  presented  otherwise  than  as  we  ourselves 
know  them.  From  the  first  it  was  that  same  Jesus 
whom  ye  have  crucified  .  .  .  ivhom  ye  slew,  having 
hanged  him  on  a  tree,  that  was  proclaimed  as  the 
Christ. 

Nor  could  there  be  any  thought  more  hateful  to 
the  mind  of  a  Jew  than  the  notion  of  such  a  death. 
It  was  not  only  unwelcome  but  revolting.  It  was 
most  opposite  to  all  the  day-dreams  which  they  had 
entertained  of  the  Messiah.  It  struck  at  the  root  of 
their  fondest  imaginations.  And  yet  it  is  neither 
to  be  denied  nor  questioned  that  the  earliest  preach- 
ing of  the  disciples  of  which  we  have  any  record  was 
of  this  character ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  must 
have  been ;  because  we  know  nothing  of  Jesus 
Christ  if  we  do  not  know  that  He  died  upon  the 
cross. 

Just,  therefore,  as  it  is  impossible  that  the  por- 
trait of  Jesus  presented  to  us  in  the  Gospels  should 
have  been  created  out  of  the  materials  supplied  by 
the  Old  Testament,  prior  to  or  without  the  corre- 
sponding facts,  so  it  is  impossible  that  the  early 
success  of  the  disciples,  so  far  as  they  were  success- 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  235 

fill,  should  have  been  created  by  this  writer's  ima- 
gination, or  should  have  been  substantially  other 
than  he  described  it.  Of  its  actual  success  we  shall 
have  abundant  proof  hereafter :  while  we  may  be 
sure  that  no  one  could  have  been  admitted  into  the 
Christian  body,  or  have  called  himself  a  Christian, 
who  did  not  believe,  or  profess  to  believe,  that  the 
Jesus  who  was  crucified  was  the  Christ.  By  every 
one  so  calling  himself  He  was  identified  with  the 
Jewish  Messiah. 

We  may  accept,  then,  without  a  particle  of  dis- 
credit, the  historian's  statement  that  the  Jesus  who 
had  been  crucified  was  proclaimed  as  the  Messiah. 
The  first  fact  of  which  we  may  be  certain  is,  that 
the  death  of  Jesus  on  the  cross  was  an  undisguised 
element  in  the  preaching  which  declared  Him  to  be 
the  Christ.  No  hesitation  as  to  the  historian's 
veracity  can  go  far  enough  to  warrant  us  in  dis- 
trusting his  accuracy  in  this  respect. 

But  then  there  is  another  point  which  his  nar-  The 

.  agency 

rative  supplies.     The  principal,  if  not  the  sole  argu-  of  the 

,..,  .  .     Scriptures. 

ment  to  which  the  disciples  appealed  m  their 
endeavours  to  exhibit  Jesus  as  the  Christ  was  the 
argument  from  Scripture.  This  also  is  a  fact  which 
it  is  impossible  to  question.  The  evidence  from  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  cumulative  and  very  strong. 
The  appeal  to  Scripture  is  the  staple  of  Peter's  argu- 
ment on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  To  the  multitudes 
assembled  in  Solomon's  porch  he  declared —  Those 


The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 


things  which  God  before  had  shewed  by  the  mouth 
of  all  his  prophets,  that  Christ  should  suffer,  he 
hath  so  fulfUed}  The  instruction  of  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch  by  Philip*  was  based  upon  his  knowledge 
and  belief  of  the  prophet  Isaiah.  The  argument 
from  Scripture,  and  none  other,  must  have  been  that 
by  which  Saul  co-founded  the  Jews  which  dwelt 
at  Damascus,  proving  that  this  is  very  Christ.^  At 
his  first  interview  with  Cornelius,  Peter  affirmed 
of  Jesus — To  him  give  all  the  prophets  witness, 
that  through  his  name,  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
shall  receive  remission  of  sins.^  At  Antioch  in 
Pisidia  the  argument  from  Scripture  was  that  which 
was  dwelt  upon  by  Paul  the  convert.  At  Thes- 
salonica  we  are  told  of  this  same  Paul,  that  he 
went  into  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews,  and  for  three 
Sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out  of  the  Scrip- 
tures *  concerning  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  The  Bereans 
are  characterised  as  being  more  noble,  or  of  better 
origin,  than  the  Thessalonians,  because  they  not 
only  recognised  the  appeal  to  Scripture,  but 
searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  whether  those  things 
were  so  ^ — namely,  that  Jesus  was  the  prophetic  Mes- 
siah. The  same  argument  must  at  least  have  been 
-  included  among  those  with  which  the  same  apostle 
reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every  Sabbath,  and 
persuaded  the  Jews  at  Corinth  ;  **  and  it  is  scarcely 

'  Acts  iii.  18.  '  ix.  22.  '  x.  4,3.  ^  xvii.  2. 

^  xvii.  1 1.  ''  xviii.  4. 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  237 

possible  that  the  same  argument  should  have  been 
altogether  omitted  when  for  a  year  and  six  months 
he  continued  in  that  city  teaching  the  loord  of 
God^  apparently  among  tlie  Gentiles ;  or,  at  all 
events,  among  a  people  composed  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles. Nor  can  it  have  been  otherwise,  when  he 
reasoned  ivith  the  Jeius  at  Ephesus,  as  it  were  by 
a  dialectical  process,  bringing  them  to  book  out 
of  their  own  Scriptures.  It  was  manifestly  so  with 
the  Jew  named  A  polios,  horn  at  Alexandria,  an 
eloquent  man,  and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  who, 
after  being  instructed  in  the  ivay  of  God  more  per- 
fectly, nriightily  convinced  the  Jews,  and  that  pub- 
licly, shewing  by  the  Scriptures  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ}  And  lastly,  before  Agrippa,  Paul  declared — 
Haviyig  therefore  obtained  help  of  God,  I  continue 
unto  this  day,  witnessing  both  to  small  and  great, 
saying  none  other  things  than  those  which  the  pro- 
phets and  Moses  did  say  should  come.^ 

From  this  evidence,  backed  as  it  is  by  a  mass 
of  other  evidence  to  which  we  need  not  now  refer, 
there  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  fact  that  the 
argument  from  Scripture  was  that  mainly  employed 
by  the  early  disciples  of  Jesus.  The  historian  can- 
not have  misled  us  here.  Even  if  his  narrative 
were  otherwise  unhistoric,  we  might  implicitly  trust 
it  in  this  respect.  The  speeches  ascribed  to  Peter, 
to  Philip,  and  to  Paul,  may  be  more  or  less  imagi- 

^  Acts  xviii.  11.  ^  xviii.  24-28.  ^  xxvi.  22. 


portance 
of  this 
fact 


238  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 

nary,  but  tliey  cannot  be  wide  of  the  truth  as  far  as 
regards  the  method  of  argument  which  the  speakers 
adopted. 
The  im-  And  let  it  not  be  said  that  it  follows,  as  a  matter 

of  course,  that  tliis  would  be  the  method  adopted  by 
men  in  their  position  when  arguing  with  Jews,  for 
it  is  precisely  upon  this  undeniable  fact  that  the 
weight  of  our  own  ars^ument  rests.  Where  would 
have  been  the  force  of  such  reasoning  with  the 
Jews  if  they  could  have  turned  round  upon  the 
disciples  of  Jesus  and  replied.  We  have  never  looked 
for  the  advent  of  any  Messiah,  nor  did  our  Scriptures 
ever  lead  us  to  expect  one.  It  was  precisely  because 
it  was  a  fact  so  well  known,  and  so  confessedly  in- 
controvertible, that  the  premises  adopted  by  the 
disciples  were  actually  unassailed,  and  were  vir- 
tually unassailable.  That  the  Jews  should  not  have 
travelled  with  them  to  their  conclusions  is  easily 
intelligible ;  but  with  respect  to  the  premises  as- 
sumecl  the  disciples  were  on  common  ground  with 
their  opponents,  and  there  was  neither  the  wish  nor 
the  ability  to  drive  them  from  it. 
brought  But  it  is  not  a  little  strange  that  the  argument 

ahke  upon  from  Scripturc  was  not  by  any  means  confined  in 
Gemife"'  its  application  to  the  Jews.  In  the  two  specimens 
we  have  of  St.  Paul's  method  of  dealing  with 
persons  entirely  beyond  the  influence  of  Jewish 
teaching,  as  at  Lystra  and  Athens,  there  is  of 
course  no  direct   reference   to    Scripture,   however 


lect.  VI.  The  Ads.  239 

much  we  can  discover  the  traces  of  Scriptural 
thought  and  language  in  his  addresses;  but  when 
he  is  dealing  with  a  mixed  assembly,  or  with  per- 
sons who  may  be  presumed  to  have  had  some 
acquaintance  with  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  no  matter 
whether  they  are  Jews  or  Gentiles,  he  employs  this 
argument  or  makes  allusion  to  Scripture  as  a  pre- 
cious and  a  common  possession.  This  is  evident 
from  his  own  Epistles,  and  it  appears  also  from  his 
speech  before  Festus  and  Agrippa.  And  in  fact  it 
was  not  possible  that  the  appeal  to  Scripture  should 
be  omitted  from  any  connected  scheme  of  Christian 
instruction,  because  it  was  impossible  to  understand 
what  such  elementary  terms  as  Christ  and  Christian 
meant,  without  pre-supposing  the  entire  framework 
of  that  written  record  of  revelation  which  the 
ancient  Scriptures  contained  and  constituted. 

The  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  wherever  it  went, 
carried  with  it  in  its  train  a  certain  unavoidable 
and  preliminary  acceptance   of  the   Jewish   Scrip- 
tures.    Unless  it  was  possible  to  divest  Jesus  of  His 
inseparable  title  Christ,  and  to  eviscerate  the  esseu-  The  Christ 
tial  and  inherent  significance  of  the  name  Christian,  Ins^'parabie 
which  every  believer  in  Jesus  was  proud  to  assume,  preTcW 
it  was  not  possible  to  do  away  with  an  imjDlied  ^f  J^sus, 
admission  that  in  some  way  or  other  the  Scriptures 
pointed  to  and  were  fulfilled  in  Him. 

Since,  therefore,  we  cannot  as  a  matter  of  fact 
get  rid  of  these  Messianic  accidents  and  elements. 


240  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 

either  from  tlie  portrait  of  Jesus  as  delineated  in 
the  Gospels,  or  from  the  earliest  records  and  traces 
of  the  original  spread  of  the  Gospel,  which  implied 
and  involved  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  it  follows 
that  we  must  recognise  such  belief  both  as  a  sub- 
stantive part  of  the  original  movement  which  we 
call  Christianity,  and  also  as  a  valid  and  potent 
instrumental  cause  in  the  success  of  that  move- 
ment. That  is  to  say,  we  cannot  separate  the  early 
success  of  the  Christian  movement,  whatever  it 
was,  from  belief  in  the  completeness  of  the  parallel 
between  Jesus  and  the  Christ  of  the  Scriptures, 
but  And  yet  there  was  everything  in  the  conception 

of  Jesus  presented  to  us  by  the  Acts  to  contradict 
and  to  do  violence  to  those  notions  of  the  Messiah 
which  had  been  previously  entertained.  There  was 
nothing  in  the  humble  lot,  the  inglorious  career, 
and,  above  all,  the  violent  and  disgraceful  death  of 
Jesus,  to  captivate  the  imagination  of  men  who 
hoped  for  a  powerful  and  victorious  king.  And  if 
this  portrait  was  unattractive  to  the  Jews,  it  can 
scarcely  have  been  less  so  to  the  Gentiles,  whether 
they  were  represented  on  the  one  hand  by  the  intel- 
lectual subtlety  of  Greece,  or  on  the  other  by  the 
imperial  pride  and  power  of  Rome. 

The   position,    then,    at   which    we   have   now 

arrived  is  as  follows  : — There  is  in  the  history  of 

Results      the  Acts,  divesting  it  of  everything  miraculous  and 

from  the     regarding  it  only  as  an  expression  of  early  Christian 

Acts 


manifestly 

inappro 

priate. 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  241 

life,  a  framework  of  personal  history  pre-supposed, 
which  is  substantially  that  of  the  Gospels,  and 
from  which  a  death  by  crucifixion  cannot  by  any 
possibility  be  eliminated.  The  particular  develop- 
ment, however,  of  Christian  life  portrayed  in  the 
Acts,  though  it  pre-supposes  such  an  earlier  history, 
identical  in  its  main  features  with  that  which  we 
possess,  was  by  no  means  to  have  been  anticipated 
from  the  Gospels.  They  may  even  be  regarded  as 
the  result  of  an  endeavour  to  supply  a  want  created 
by  the  kind  of  movement  recorded  in  the  Acts, 
an  attempt  to  gratify  the  not  unnatural  curiosity 
of  early  Christians.  And  even  supposing  that  in 
certain  details  they  were  untrustworthy,  it  would 
still  follow  that  in  the  broad  and  characteristic 
features  of  the  personal  life  of  Jesus  they  must  be 
deserving  of  credit,  because  without  such  a  founda- 
tion of  fact  not  only  would  the  incidents  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  be  inconceivable,  but  also  the 
kind  of  life  of  which  that  book  must  anyhow  be 
the  natural  expression  and  result. 

What  we  may  term,   then,    the  Christ  of  the  independ- 

,  .  .  .  .  „  ent  of  the 

Acts  IS  a  creation  to  a  certam  extent  distinct  irom,  Gospels, 
and  in  some  sense  independent  of,  the  Christ  of  the  fiimatory. 
Gospels.  The  Christ  of  the  Acts  comes  before  us 
as  a  belief  already  in  existence  and  operative ;  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospels  is  a  Person,  and  not  a  belief. 
But  the  belief  is  a  belief  in  a  person  similar  to  that 
portrayed  in  the  Gospels ;  similar,  that  is,  in  the 
R 


242  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

manner  of  His  life  and  death.  Thougli  one  of  the 
Gospels  may  be  by  the  \Yriter  of  the  Acts,  it  matters 
not,  because  his  portrait  is  not  materially  different, 
at  least  in  tbese  respects,  from  that  of  the  other 
Evangelists ;  while  his  later  narrative,  regarded  only 
as  an  indication  of  the  kind  of  peof)le  for  whom  it 
was  written,  may  be  considered  as  giving  an  average, 
or  even,  if  you  will,  a  favourable  specimen  of  the 
life  which  it  describes.  At  all  events,  men  did  at 
an  early  period  of  the  Christian  era  travel  about 
the  world  as  Paul  and  Barnabas  are  described  to 
have  done,  for  the  simple  purpose  of  proclaiming 
the  main  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  of  per- 
suading people  that  He  was  the  Christ.  They 
were  not  the  apostles  of  a  political  creed  ;  they  can- 
not be  suspected  of  any  ulterior  motive ;  they  were 
not  the  founders  of  a  philosophy,  the  heralds  of  a 
scheme  for  social  advantages  or  worldly  advance- 
ment. They  preached  that  a  man  had  lived  and 
died  in  Palestine,  and  that  He  was  the  Messiah 
spoken  of  before  by  the  propliets. 
The  Jesus  And  there  is  no  cjuestion  that  wherever  they 
died  ^^^  were  successful,  and  so  far  as  they  were  successful, 
asThe'^*^  this  man  was  everywhere  and  always  accepted 
as  the  Messiah.  Yet,  in  His  character,  as  it  is 
presented  to  us  in  the  Acts  and  described  in  the 
Gospels,  there  was  nothing  that  was  calculated 
antecedently  to  win  the  belief  that  He  was  the  pro- 
phetic   Christ,    for   in    all    the    most    conspicuous 


Christ 
of  the 
Scriptures 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  243 

features  He  was  very  different  from  what  miglit 
have  been,  and  from  what  actually  was  anticipated. 
This  belief,  however,  was  everywhere  produced  by, 
or  Avas  nowhere  produced  without,  the  Scriptures. 
It  was  the  likeness  between  the  Jesus  who  was 
preached  and  the  Christ  of  prophecy  which  con- 
vinced men  that  the  one  was  the  fulfilment  of  the 
other.  Whether  or  not  this  was  what  u'e  should 
consider  a  valid,  or  satisfactory,  or  logical  means  of 
bringing  about  the  particular  result,  there  is  no 
question  whatever  that  it  was  historically  tlie  means 
by  which  the  result  was  brought  about.  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  to  this  effect ; 
and  it  is  not  possible  in  this  respect  to  doubt  its 
testimony. 

It  is  plain,  however,  both  from  the  Acts  of  the  Another 
Apostles  and  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  that  we  at  work, 
have  not  yet  taken  into  account  all  the  elements  at 
work  in  bringing  about  the  result  produced.  It  is 
simply  impossible  that  the  story  of  the  life  and 
death  of  Jesus  alone  should  have  wrought  the  con- 
viction that  He  was  the  Messiah.  There  must 
have  been,  and  there  was,  another  element  combined. 
And  this  was  the  proclamation  that  He  had  risen 
again  from  the  dead.  The  history  of  the  Acts  may 
be  accepted  as  evidence  that  the  resurrection  was 
proclaimed,  and  that  its  proclamation  entered  to  a 
very  large  extent  into  the  preaching  of  the  dis- 
ciples.    While,  as  we  have  seen,  it  was  impossible 


which 
was  the 
announce- 
ment that 
He  had 
risen. 


244  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 

from  the  vague  and  obscure  statements  of  Scripture 
to  anticipate  or  invent  beforehand  the  fact  of  the 
resurrection,  it  is  easy  to  calculate  and  to  under- 
stand the  enormous  momentum  which  would  be 
added  to  the  weight  of  the  evidence  for  Jesus  being 
the  Christ,  when  it  could  be  definitely  announced 
that  He  had  actually  risen  from  the  dead,  and  when 
the  present  agency  of  the  Spirit  could  be  appealed 
to  in  confirmation  of  the  fact. 

And  we  know  for  a  certainty  that  it  was  thus 
that  the  full  message  of  the  Gospel  was  proclaimed. 
Jesus  could  not  have  been  recoo;nised  as  the  Christ 
in  the  way  He  is  represented  to  have  been  recog- 
nised in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  unless  we  may 
throw  in  as  a  powerful  element  in  the  early  preach- 
ing of  the  disciples  the  announcement  that  He  had 
risen  from  the  dead.  It  was  alike  impossible  that, 
prior  to  the  Lord's  resurrection,  the  ingenuity  of  the 
disciples  should  have  detected  the  special  element 
that  was  lacking  in  the  power  and  efiiciency  of 
their  message,  and  that  the  conviction  of  Jesus 
being  the  Christ  should  have  been  produced  with- 
out the  declaration  that  He  had  burst  the  bonds  of 
death.  When  that  fact  had  been  proclaimed,  it 
swallowed  up  all  the  shame  and  degradation  of  the 
cross,  the  lowliness  of  the  origin,  the  meanness  and 
the  poverty  of  the  lot  and  life  of  Jesus.  Then  that 
life  and  death  of  shame  and  sufi"ering  became  in- 
vested with  a  new,  and   before,  impossible  glory. 


The  Acts.  245 


Then  tlie  colours  of  the  rainbow  which  spans  the 
waterfall  were  seen  in  the  brightness  of  the  rising 
sun  as  it  fell  athwart  the  cloudy  spray.  Then  a 
new  meaning  was  given  to  the  grief  and  triumph 
of  the  Psalmist,  a  new  cause  was  revealed  for  the 
hope  and  longing  of  the  Prophet,  a  new  treasury  of 
substance  and  expressiveness  was  added  to  the 
shadows  and  symbols  of  the  Law.  Then  it  was 
that  the  regal  glories  of  the  universal  King  were 
identified  with  the  spiritual  self-mastery  of  the 
crown  of  thorns,  and  the  reed  that  was  put  into  the 
hand  was  hailed  as  a  nobler  sceptre,  and  the  title 
that  was  written  by  Pilate  was  recognised  as  a 
truer  ensign  of  royalty  than  those  of  the  mightiest 
kings.  Then  it  was  that  the  purple  robe  was  re- 
garded as  a  prouder  token  of  majesty  than  the  im- 
perial vesture  of  the  Csesars,  and  the  death  of  the 
Roman  malefactor  more  glorious  and  heroic  than 
the  death  of  the  warrior  in  the  shout  of  victory. 

But  we  may  safely  affirm  that  there  was  nothing 
in  the  incidents  of  the  death  of  Jesus  alone  and  by 
themselves  that  was  capable  of  bringing  about  this 
change  of  sentiment.    Neither  these  incidents  alone,  The 
nor  any  combination  of  them,  would  have  wrought  produced 
the  conviction  that  He  was  the  Messiah.     There  was  without  it^ 
another  element  wanting  ;  an  element  which  they 
were  incompetent  to   suggest,  but  which,  when  it 
was  thrown  in,  was  all-powerful  to  interpret  and  to 
glorify  them.     It  is  obviously  true  that  we  cannot 


246  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

argue  from  all  this  to  the  reality  of  the  resurrection, 
but  we  may  legitimately  argue  from  it,  that  without 
the  proclamation  of  the  fact  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
had  risen  from  the  dead,  the  conviction  of  His 
being  the  Messiah  could  not  have  been  produced  ; 
while  the  incidents  of  His  life  and  death,  apart 
from  His  resurrection,  were  alike  as  incapable  of 
originating  the  story  of  it  as  they  were  of  produc- 
ing that  conviction. 
The  Acts  Not  only,  however,  was  it  impossible  that  the 

from  the  doctriue  of  Jesus  being  the  Messiah  could  have 
been  sustained  for  a  moment,  or  propagated,  with- 
out the  story  of  His  resurrection,  which,  according 
to  the  Acts,  was  everywhere  and  always  proclaimed, 
but  there  are  certain  characteristics  of  that  book 
which  we  find  ourselves  at  a  loss  to  account  for  on 
the  assumption  that  the  story  was  fictitious.  And 
it  is  here  that  we  discover  the  greatest  contrast 
between  the  Gospel  history  and  the  history  of  the 
Acts.  The  Gospel  history  is  the  history  of  Christ, 
and  the  record  of  certain  germinal  principles  in- 
culcated by  Him.  We  nowhere  see  any  life  in 
detailed  action  except  His  own.  The  glimpses 
that  we  catch  of  other  lives  serve  only  to  throw 
out  His  into  more  prominent  relief, 
in  giving  In   the  Acts  of   the  Apostles  it  is  altogether 

of^chris-'^  different ;  and  necessarily  and  obviously  so.     There 
^^^  '  ^'     we  have  not  the  history  of  Christ,  but  the  history 
of  Christian  life.     The  person  of  Christ  is  entirely 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  247 

withdrawn  from  view.  The  Christ  that  we  meet 
with  in  the  Acts  is  a  Christ  who  lives  in  the  per- 
sons of  His  followers.  In  the  Gospels  we  have  no 
such  phenomenon,  properly  speaking,  as  Christian 
life.  It  is  a  thing  unknown,  and  as  yet  not  ex- 
perienced. If  it  exists  at  all,  it  exists  only  in 
germ,  and  is  undeveloped.  The  foremost  of  the 
apostles  behave  very  much  as  other  men,  and  are 
not  under  the  influence  of  any  more  powerful 
motive  or  impulse  than  that  of  personal  attachment 
to  their  Master,  which  is  scarcely  distinguishable 
from  ordinary  friendship.  The  last  chapter  of  the 
fourth  Gospel  has  given  us  a  picture  of  some  of  the 
chief  disciples  pursuing  their  ordinary  avocations 
on  the  Lake  of  Galilee,  after  their  Lord's  resurrec- 
tion. But  in  the  Acts  of  the  xlpostles  things  are 
entirely  changed.  AVe  no  sooner  open  the  first 
pages  of  that  book  than  we  find  the  character  of 
the  disciples  transfigured.  The  Peter  of  the  Acts 
is  a  totally  difterent  man  from  the  Peter  even  of 
St.  Luke's  Gospel.  Depart  from  me,  for  I  am 
a  sinful  man,  0  Lord :  ^  Master,  it  is  good  for  its 
to  he  here,^  on  the  mountain  of  glory  :  Lo !  we 
have  left  all,  and  folloived  thee :  ^  Woman,  I  know 
him  not ;  ^  by  no  means  represent  the  same  man 
that   comes    before    us   immediately  in    the   Acts, 

1  St.  Luke  V.  8.  -  ix.  33.     St.  Mutt.  xvii.  4.     St.  Mark  ix.  5. 

^  St.  Luke  xviii.  28.      St.  Matt.  xix.  27.      St.  Mark  x.  28. 

*  St.  Luke  xxii.  57. 


248  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 

ready  to  place  Himself  at  the  head  of  the  hundred 
and  twenty  disciples,  to  indicate  the  course  of 
action  they  are  to  take,  and  to  reveal  the  intention 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  by  the  mouth  of  David  ^ — ready 
again  to  interpret  an  unusual  phenomenon  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost  as  more  nearly  fulfilling  the  words 
of  the  prophet  Joel  than  any  other  former  event  ^- — 
daring  to  confront  the  murderers  of  Jesus  with  the 
charge,  Einn  have  ye  taken,  and  hy  wicked  hands 
have  crucified  and  slain^ — and  rebutting  the  injunc- 
tion not  to  speak  at  all,  nor  teach  in  the  name  of 
Jesus,  with  the  home-thrust  and  matter-of-fact 
argument,  Wiether  it  he  right  in  the  sight  of  God 
to  hearken  unto  you  more  than  unto  God,  judge 
ye;  for  we  cannot  hut  speak  the  things  vjhich  we 
have  seen  and  heard^  Here  we  detect  the  presence 
of  elements  which  are  altogether  absent  from  the 
Gospel  history — those,  namely,  of  Christian  life  and 
of  deliberate  and  unshaken  Christian  belief;  al- 
though, at  the  same  time,  there  are  traits  enough  of 
individual  character  to  show  the  identity  of  the 
person  in  both  cases. 

and  its  But  uot  ouly  SO,  for  it  is  manifest  that  this  con- 

growth.        ..  „,,..,.  .„. 

viction    01    the    disciples    is    most   miectious.       It 

spreads  itself  in  all  directions,  it  excites  the  special 
animosity  and  opposition  of  the  Sadducees,  as  it 
naturally  would,  though  they,  with  their  character- 
istic indifference  and  apathy,  appear  to  have  been 

'  Acts  i.  16.  '  ii.  16.  ^  ii.  23.  ''  iv.  10,  20. 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  249 

less  25rominGnt  antagonists  of  Jesus  during  His  life- 
time than  the  Pharisees.^  It  communicates  itself 
even  to  the  priests,  it  penetrates  into  Samaria,  and 
reaches  as  far  as  Damascus.  The  new  society  is 
found  to  increase  to  such  an  extent  that  new  prin- 
ciples of  organisation  have  necessarily  to  be  adopted, 
and  powers  of  deliberation  and  of  self-government 
are  spontaneously  developed,  of  which  the  exercise 
may  be  regarded  as  almost  if  not  entirely  new  in 
the  history  of  the  world.  All  this,  if  it  is  not  dis- 
tinctly traceable  to  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus,  cannot  by  any  possibility  be  separated  from 
that  belief.  In  fact,  the  belief  in  His  resurrection 
was  the  motive  power  and  impulse  of  it  all,  for  it  was 
involved  in  the  conviction  of  His  being  the  Messiah, 
for  which  the  disciples  and  their  followers  were 
willing  to  forego  everything,  and  to  incur  anything. 

Such,  then,  is  the  picture  of  Christian  life  pre-  The 
sented  to  us  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.     It  is  offiir '  ^ 
impossible  to  question  its  general  accuracy,  because  menmi. 
it  is  capable  of  abundant  corroboration  from  other 
sources.       There     is     nothing,    however,    directly 

■^  This  is  shown  in  a  very  simple  wa3^  The  Sadducees  are  only 
mentioned  in  the  Gospel  history  some  eight  or  nine  times,  and  chiefly 
in  St.  Matthew  (llark  xii.  18  ;  Luke  xx.  27)  :  the  Pharisees  appear 
more  frequently,  and  in  each  Gospel  they  are  always  mentioned  first, 
and  nearly  always  with  disapproval  expressed  or  implied.  In  the  Acts 
the  Pharisees  are  never  unfavourable  to  the  believers  in  Jesus,  and 
even  take  their  part  (Acts  v.  34;  xxiii.  9)  ;  while  the  Sadducees,  on 
the  three  occasions  they  are  mentioned,  are  their  strenuous  opponents 
(iv.  1  ;  V.  17  ;  xxiii.  7). 


;50  The  C J  wist  of 


Lect.  VI. 


answeriug  to  it  in  tlie  Gospel  history,  for  the 
conduct  of  Jesus  was  arranged  on  a  different 
plan,  and  the  persecution  of  Jesus  arose  from 
a  different  cause.  This  manifestation,  there- 
fore, of  Christian  life  was  an  entirely  new  pheno- 
menon, possessing  new  and  original  features  never 
exhibited  before,  and  pointing  consequently  to  a 
new  and  original  cause.  This  cause  we  may  rightly 
specify  as  the  personal  influence  of  Jesns — not  the 
influence  of  His  teaching,  because  as  far  as  we  can 
tell  from  the  Acts,  the  disciples  do  not  seem  to  have 
reproduced  His  teaching  ;  they  were  concerned  less 
with  His  teaching  than  with  Him  ;  but  it  was  His 
personal  influence  and  attachment  to  His  person.  If, 
however,  attachment  to  His  person  while  He  was 
alive  had  produced  no  such  results,  why  should  it 
produce  these  results  now  he  was  dead  ?  In  fact, 
the  attachment  exhibited  was  in  no  sense  attach- 
ment to  one  departed,  nor  to  the  principles  for 
which  he  had  died,  but  much  rather  to  a  23erson 
whose  direct  influence  was  still  present  and  opera- 
tive ;  it  was  devotion  to  a  new  set  of  principles,  to 
new  truths,  and  above  all,  to  a  new  fact  of  which  the 
full  weight  and  significance  had  not  been  felt  before, 
as  during  His  lifetime  it  had  not  been  possible  to 
feel  it. 

In  reading  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  we  cannot 
ffiil  to  see  that  we  liave  entered  on  the  stream  of  a 
new  life,  to  which  even  the  Gospel  history  ofl'ers  no 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  251 

true  parallel.  We  note  tlie  spontaneous  action  and 
development  of  a  new  society  working  on  new  prin- 
ciples and  for  new  purposes,  and  the  mainspring  of 
all  this  is  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  not,  however,  to  be  forgotten,  that,  as  far  as  Agency  of 
the  history  of  this  new  life  is  unfolded  to  us  in  the  spirit. 
Acts,  it  is  not  even  to  be  referred  exclusively  to 
the  Lord's  resurrection.  Omnipotent  as  that  fact 
might  be  considered  in  itself,  if  a  fact,  it  lay,  com- 
paratively speaking,  dormant  in  the  minds  of  the 
disciples  for  a  period  of  fifty  days.  Its  power  was 
but  imperfectly  understood  till  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
Then  it  burst  forth  with  a  sudden  accession  of  life. 
Peter  had  indeed  felt,  in  the  interval  between  the 
ascension  and  Pentecost,  that  one  must  be  ordained 
to  be  a  witness  with  him  and  his  fellows  to  the 
Lord's  resurrection  ;  he  must  have  had,  therefore, 
a  fore-feeling  of  what  his  own  mission  was  to  be,  but 
we  read  of  no  missionary  eJ0fort  whatever  during  the 
period  of  the  fifty  days.  We  read  further  in  this 
narrative  that  the  disciples  were  commanded  to  tarry 
at  Jerusalem  until  they  should  be  endued  with 
power  from  on  high.  We  may  safely  infer  from 
this  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  writer  it  was  not  even 
the  bare  fact  of  the  resurrection  that  was  sufiici- 
ent  to  call  the  new  society  into  existence,  but  the 
revelation  of  a  new  dynamical  force  consequent  upon 
the  resurrection  and  in  addition  to  it.  The  writer 
wished  it   to   be  distinctlv  understood  that  a  new 


The  CJirist  of 


Lect.  VI. 


energy  had  begun  to  be  put  forth,  and  that  the  mate- 
rials with  which  it  worked  were  the  life  and  death, 
the  resurrection  and  ascension,  but  pre-eminently 
the  resurrection,  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  Not  these 
facts  alone,  but  these  focts  wdelded  by  the  power  of 
the  Spirit  of  God,  had  wrought  with  a  new  influence 
upon  men,  and  had  produced  new  results  in  men. 
The  Acts  And  though  it  is  possible  that  we  may  not  be 

sure  ofThe  Competent  judges  of  the  cause  alleged  to  be  in  ope- 
lioduced,  ration,  we  are  to  a  certain  extent  competent  judges 
of  the  results  produced.  And  of  these  results  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  a  sufficient  proof.  Leaving 
out  of  the  question  all  the  miraculous  features  of 
that  book,  the  picture  it  has  preserved  to  us  of  the 
early  Christian  society  is  al>solutely  unique  in  the 
literature  of  the  world.  What  if  that  picture  can  be 
shown  to  be  misrepresented  or  overdrawn  ? — it  even 
then  remains  to  a  very  large  extent  a  witness  to  the 
existence  of  a  new  society  capable  of  appreciating 
the  misrepresentation ;  it  is  a  proof  of  a  new  literary 
taste  among  men,  for  the  existence  and  origin  of 
which  some  rational  account  must  be  given.  It 
professes  itself  to  supply  the  true,  and  is  the  only 
extant,  account.  It  is  actually,  in  all  substantial 
particulars,  of  unimpeachable  authority,  and  conse- 
quently the  picture  it  presents  may  be  taken  as 
a  proof  of  the  mode  in  which  the  new  influence 
operated  among  men,  and  of  the  peculiar  results 
produced  by  it. 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  253 

And,  assuredly,  these  results,  as  we  see  them 
there,  can  only  be  regarded  as  evidence  of  a  new 
life,  while  the  new  life  is  itself  the  evidence  of  anew  which  were 

tlic  cvi- 

principle  of  life  at  work,  and  this  new  principle   of  dence  of  a 
life  is  the  princij)le  of  deathless  and  eternal  life  re-  at  work, 
vealed  and  exemplified  in  the  actual  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus. 

Nor  is  there  any  way  of  escaping  from  this  or  a  which 
similar  conclusion  but  by  referrino^  the  results  pro-  generated 

.  .  by  the 

duced,  not  to  the  fact  believed,  but  to  the  belief  of  faith  of  the 
the  fact.  The  marvellous  phenomena  of  the  new 
Christian  life  displayed  in  the  Acts  were  simply  the 
product  of  the  faith  of  the  disciples.  They  w^ere  the 
victims  of  their  own  delusions,  and  their  own  delu- 
sions produced  these  efiects.  Their  own  delusions, 
it  must  be  remembered,  were  these — that  Jesus  w\as 
the  Messiah,  as  proved  by  His  life,  and  death,  and 
resurrection,  and  as  witnessed  and  confirmed  by  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  which  alone,  as  it  ap- 
peared, the  rapid  growth  of  the  Christian  society,  in 
spite  of  all  unfavourable  circumstances,  could  be 
referred. 

If,  then,  the  outward  circumstances  of  the  life  of 
Jesus  were  most  unfavourable  to  His  claims  to  be 
the  Christ,  no  less  so  were  those  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian society  to  the  difi"usion  of  that  belief;  and,  seeing 
that  the  cardinal  fact  of  that  belief  was  one  which, 
if  unreal,  at  once  admitted  of  a  ready  and  complete 
disproof,    it   appears    that   the   most   natural    and 


2  54  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

rational  way  of  accounting  for  the  diffusion  of  the 
belief  is  by  supposing  that  the  fact  could  not  be 
disproved.  When  we  consider  who  were  the  first 
propagators  of  the  belief,  w^here  they  first  propagated 
it,  the  means  employed  in  doing  so,  and  the  success 
with  which  tliey  did  so,  it  appears  certainly  more 
reasonable  to  interpret  these  things  as  indications  of 
an  underlying  element  of  truth,  than  to  assume,  in 
the  face  of  them,  that  the  crucial  test  of  Jesus  being 
the  Christ  was  one  which  neither  Avas  nor  could  be 
applied,  and  that  with  the  failure  of  that  test  every 
vestige  of  His  claims  to  be  regarded  as  the  Christ 
of  necessity  came  to  nought. 
The  But  this  is  not  all,  for  we  are  competent  judges 

of  the  new  also  of  the  general  moral  tendency  and  character  of 
eacimg,  ^^^  ^^^  ^^^^  depleted  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
When  men,  without  hope  or  prospect  of  temporal 
advantage  or  reward,  could  live,  as  the  first  disciples 
lived,  in  the  fear  and  love  of  God,  and  suffer,  as  they 
suffered,  rejoicing  that  they  were  counted  worthy  to 
suffer  shame  for  the  name  of  Jesus,  we  are  con- 
strained, in  spite  of  ourselves,  to  decide  wdiether  the 
fruits  produced  were  those  of  the  good  trise  or  the 
bad  ;  whether  they  were  worthier  of  the  spirit  of 
evil  or  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  conscience  itself 
seems  to  determine  that  it  is  not  possible  to  reject 
these  things  as  the  special  manifestations  of  the 
Holy  Spirit's  working.  To  do  so  would  but  too 
nearly   resemble    what   is    spoken    of  in  the   Gos- 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  255 

pels   as   the    unpardonable    sin    against   the    Holy 
Ghost. 

We  point,  then,  not  to  the  miraculous  features 
of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  as  commonly  under- 
stood, but  to  the  far  greater  miracle  of  the  new  and 
Divine  life  which  that  book  exhibits  in  operation,  as 
the  irresistible  proof  of  the  new  and  Divine  energy 
at  work  in  the  world ;  and  we  say  that  it  Avould  be 
a  libel  on  the  truth  to  suppose  that  such  results 
could  be  sufficiently  accounted  for  on  the  supposi- 
tion that  they  were  created  by  a  belief  which,  if 
not  literally  and  virtually  true,  was  entirely  and 
absolutely  false. 

The  results  referred  to  were  the  direct  conse- of  which 
quence  of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.     To  His  was 
being  the  Messiah,  not  only  faith  in  His  resurrection  is  ST 
was  essential,  but  much  more  the  fact  that  He  had 
truly  risen  from  the  dead.     If  He  was  merely  be- 
lieved to  have  risen,  but  had  not  risen  from  the 
dead,  then  He  could  in  no  sense  be  the  Messiah — 
the  belief  in  His  Messiahship  was  based  upon  a 
falsehood,  and  to  that  falsehood  must  be  attributed, 
as  the    sole  and   direct  cause,  all   the  marvellous 
phenomena  of  moral  regeneration  and  of  new  spiritual 
life  to  which  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  is  an  unde- 
niable witness. 

There  is  and  can  be  no  m_anner  of  question, 
that  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ  came  upon  men 
with  the  force  of  a  new  and  Divine  principle  of  life, 


256  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

producing  results  most  opposite  to  the  naturally 
selfish  and  unloving  tendencies  of  the  human  heart, 
and  purifying  the  springs  of  individual  and  social 
existence  to  a  degree  with  which  nothing  can  com- 
pare. Nor  has  this  original  impulse  ever  spent 
itself.  Nowhere  in  history  do  we  find  it  so  pure 
and  strong  as  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  There 
we  see  it  bubbling  up  from  the  fountain-head  clear 
and  bright,  and  sparkling  as  it  is  destined  never  to 
be  again ;  but  the  stream  that  issues  from  the  foun- 
tain has  never  failed  to  this  hour,  nor  can  it  ever 
fail.  The  fountain  is  perennial  as  the  source  of 
truth  itself,  and  the  head  of  that  fountain  is  Jesus 
as  the  Christ. 

In  the  historic  development,  then,  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Christ,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  has  its 
place.  It  shows  us  the  earliest  known  phases  of 
belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  It  exhibits  a  belief  in 
the  entire  framework  of  the  Gospel  history  concern- 
ing Him  as  in  vogue  among  men  : — His  life  of  per- 
severing goodness.  His  wonderful  works,^  His  be- 
trayal,^ His  rejection  in  favour  of  Barabbas,^  the 
share  of  Pilate  in  His  execution,*  His  violent  death 
by  crucifixion,^  His  burial,^  His  resurrection  from 
the  dead  the  third  day,''  His  frequent  appearance 
during  forty  days  after  His  resurrection,^  His 
ascension  into   heaven,^  His  session    on    the  right 

^  Acts  X.  38.  -  i.  If)  ;  vii.  52.  ^  ii.  14.  ^  ii.  13. 

^  ii.  23  ;  v.  30.       "  xiii.  29.      ^  x.  40.       '^  i.  3  ;  x.  41.       ^  ii.  34. 


Lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  257 


hand  of  God/  His  return  to  judgment,-  His 
Divine  Sonship/  His  office  as  the  appointed  chan- 
nel of  forgiveness/  and  of  baptism  by  the  Holy 
Ghost/  His  being  made  hotli  Lord  and  Christ,^  a 
Prince  and  a  Saviour,^  to  give  repentance  to 
Israel,  and  to  be  a  light  of  the  Gentiles.^  We 
cannot  question  that  all  this  was  a  part  of  the 
earliest  known  belief  of  those  people  who  were 
called  Christians  first  in  Antioch. 

But,  furthermore,  we  find  these  people  from  the  Baptism 
first  baptising  believers  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Lord's 
Jesus,''  or  of  Jesus  as  the  Lord,  and  of  their  breaking  "'^^'^'' 
bread  ^^  in  token  of  their  fellowship  with  one  another 
and  with  the  Lord.  Now,  the  former  of  these  cus- 
toms, namely  baptism,  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by 
the  Gospel  of  St.  Luke.  There  is  no  reference  in  it 
to  any  such  command  by  Jesus ;  and  yet,  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Acts,  the  universal  prevalence  of  the 
custom  is  not  to  be  denied.  The  prevalence  of  the 
custom,  then,  from  the  first,  is  a  presumptive  witness 
to  some  injunction  having  been  given  respecting  it. 
The  only  possible  inference  is,  that  the  injunction  was 
given  by  Jesus;  but  there  are  few  more  striking 
phenomena  in  the  records  of  the  early  church  than 
the  silence  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel  on  the  matter  of 
baptism,  and  the  prominence  of  the  rite  in  his  history 

1   Acts  V.  .31.  -  X.  42.  3   jii    13  .  i^,_  £7,  etc. 

^  X.  43.  5  ii.  38.  ^  ii_  36.  ^  v.  31.  '^  xiii.  47. 

9  ii.  38  ;  viii.  16,  etc.  i"  ii.  42,  46  ;    xx.  7. 

S 


258  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

of  the  Acts.  The  latter  book  is  an  unimpeachable 
witness  to  the  early  prevalence  of  the  custom;  but  the 
custom  is  itself  a  witness  to  a  prior  belief  in  Jesus, 
and  a  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  AVhat  manner 
of  man  the  Jesus  believed  in  was  we  have  already 
seen ; — one  who  was  betrayed,  crucified,  dead,  and 
buried ;  one  who  had  risen  from  the  dead  and 
ascended  into  heaven.  It  was  impossible  that  one 
who  was  crucified  and  buried  merely  should  have 
been  the  Christ,  or  have  been  supposed  to  be  the  Christ. 
The  only  means  by  which  his  death  could  become 
not  sinqily  glorified,  but  divested  of  its  inherent 
shame,  was  by  a  belief  in  that  which,  prior  to  the 
fact,  it  was  not  possible  to  anticipate  from  the  scanty 
and  obscure  allusions  in  the  Scriptures,  and  which, 
after  the  proclamation  of  the  fact,  had  nothing  to 
rest  on  but  those  obscure  allusions,  unless  it  was 
the  reality  of  the  fact  proclaimed. 
indicating  Wc  may,  therefore,  take  the  prevalence  of  bap- 
a pci&ona   ^.^^^^  ^^-^  ^^^  l)reaking  of  bread  as  a  clear  indication 

of  the  personal  influence,  the  personal  command,  and 
consequently  of  the  personal  life,  of  Jesus.  We  have 
nothino;  to  which  to  refer  these  customs,  unless  it  be 
the  direct  command  of  Jesus,  to  which  in  three  of 
the  Gospels  the  breaking  of  bread  is  referred,  and  to 
which  in  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Mark  the  practice  of 
baptism  is  referred. 

Thus  the  history  of  the  Acts  is  a  direct  witness 
to  a  previously  existing  life,  and  to  a  belief  that  the 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  259 

person  so  existing  was  tlie  Christ  of  prophecy.  The 
principal  agency  employed  in  producing  the  belief 
was  that  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament. 
By  them  the  Jews  were  confounded,  or  were  mightily 
convinced  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 

And  so  the  history  may  be  taken  as  a  proof  of  The 
the  historic  reality  both  of  the  person  and  of  the  supposes^' 
Messianic  office  which  He  claimed  to  fill.  Men  jeLs,^  ° 
could  not  have  been  called  Christians  had  that  office 
been  an  unreality,  an  idea  which  had  no  existence, 
or  which  rested  on  no  ostensible  foundation.  Jesus 
could  not  have  been  l^elieved  in  as  the  fullest  real- 
isation of  that  idea  if  His  life  had  been  a  shadow 
and  not  an  historic  existence.  Shadows  do  not  ori- 
ginate customs  so  definite  and  so  persistent  as  those 
of  baptism  and  the  breaking  of  bread.  The  Christ 
of  the  Acts  is  a  phenomenon  which  cannot  be 
accounted  for  but  on  the  supposition  of  the  prior 
existence  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  The  Christ 
of  the  Gospels,  however,  is  a  conception  entirely 
distinct  from  the  Christ  of  the  Acts,  and  can- 
not have  been  originated  in  order  to  account  for  the 
phenomena  presented  by  that  book.  Without  the 
foundation  of  a  human  life  similar  to  that  of  Jesus, 
the  history  of  the  Acts,  containing  such  a  substan- 
tial framework  of  truth  as  we  know  it  must  contain, 
could  not  have  been  written. 

But  just  as  it  was  impossible  that  the  Christ  of 
the  Gospels  should  have  been  constructed  out  of  the 


alleired. 


260  The  Christ  of  lect.  vi. 

Messianic  materials  previously  existing  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, so  is  it  even  more  clearly  impossible  that  the 
Christ  of  the  Acts  should  have  been  constructed  out 
and  the  of  tliosc  materials.  And,  in  fact,  the  apparent  and 
the  facts  conspicuous  unlikcness  between  the  Christ  of  the 
Acts  and  the  Christ  of  prophecy  affords  a  strong 
presumptive  argument  that  the  belief  in  Jesus  as 
the  Christ  could  not  have  obtained  to  the  extent  it 
did  but  for  the  underlying  fact  of  the  resurrection.  It 
was  that  fact  alone,  and  not  the  belief  in  the  fact, 
which  gave  whatever  semblance  of  probability  there 
was  to  the  statement  that  He  was  the  Clu:ist.  That 
such  a  statement  should  have  been  to  a  large  extent 
discredited,  being  as  it  was  contrary  to  all  experi- 
ence, is  in  no  way  surprising  ;  that  it  should  have 
been  believed  so  firmly,  so  widely,  and  with  such 
results  as  it  was,  affords  the  strongest  possible  pre- 
sumption that  the  faith  had  been  created  by  the 
fact,  and  not  the  fact  invented  by  the  faith.  For 
every  individual  who  believed  the  fact  did  so  with 
precisely  the  same  reason  for  disbelieving  which  they 
had  who  rejected  it. 

The  picture  of  Christian  life,  then,  presented  in 
the  Acts,  is  the  necessary  and  natural  result  of  the 
picture  of  the  life  of  Christ  presented  in  the  Gospels  : 
the  necessary  and  natural  result,  if  that  life  was  a 
reality,  but  by  no  means  natural  or  necessary  if  it 
was  not :  by  no  means  an  obvious  result  if  that  life 
was  an  invention  ;  by  all  means  an  unnatural  and  an 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts.  261 

impossible  result  if  that  life  was  unreal  or  was  other 
than  it  professed  to  be. 

The  history  of  the  Acts  was  the  most  vivid  illus-  The  Acts 

7->  T  T  1      n    T       illustrative 

tration  of  the  words — Because  I  Itve,  ye  sliall  live  of  om- 
also.  The  Gospels  contained  the  narrative  of  all  words. 
that  Jesus  began  both  to  do  and  teach.  The  Acts 
contained  the  record  of  Avhat  He  still  taught  and  did 
after  His  visible  presence  was  withdrawn.  It  was 
not  the  spirit  of  His  teaching  which  produced  these 
results,  but  the  power  of  His  unseen  personal  pre- 
sence and  influence.  The  evidence  of  His  life  was 
in  the  life  and  action  of  His  followers.  There  was  a 
new  development  or  manifestation  of  His  existence, 
a  develo23ment  which  would  have  been  impossible 
had  His  existence  been  unreal. 

Of  the  historic  existence  of  this  new  develop- 
ment there  can  be  no  doubt :  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
is  not  the  only,  though  it  may  be  the  oldest  and 
most  original,  monument— a  monument  which  is  a 
permanent  illustration  of  the  truth  that  Christian 
life  is  an  evidence  of  the  life  of  Christ.  It  is  im- 
possible to  account  for  the  phenomena  of  Christian 
life  when  displayed  in  their  simplest  and  purest 
forms,  as  they  are  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  ex- 
cept on  the  supposition  of  the  unseen  life  of  Christ. 
The  pulses  of  spiritual  life  are  to  be  felt  in  all  ages 
and  in  every  clime,  but  the  heart  from  which  they 
are  derived  is  in  heaven.  If  the  pulse  of  regenerate 
life  is  felt  to  beat  within  ourselves,  we  shall  not  ques- 


262  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vi. 

tion  the  source  from  whence  it  is  derived.  We  shall 
know  that  it  can  have  no  origin  but  one,  and  that 
origin  the  living  person  of  the  Lord.  If  we  are 
strangers  to  the  reality  of  His  life  in  our  own  hearts, 
we  may  well  question  its  reality  in  Him,  for  we  shall 
lack  the  highest  evidence  which  can  be  offered  to 
the  world  or  to  ourselves — the  only  evidence,  in  fact, 
which  can  ever  be  complete,  the  evidence  of  life 
derived  from  life.  If  we  are  conscious  of  a  new  life 
within,  we  shall  know  that  it  cannot  be  referred  to 
nature,  or  to  self,  or  to  our  fellow-men — that  it  is  not 
of  the  earth  earthy,  but  to  be  referred  only  to  the 
Lord  from  heaven. 
Practical  As   mcmij  as   received  him,  to    them  gave  he 

Ijower  to  become  the  sons  of  God,  even  to  them  that 
believe  on  his  name  ;  ivhich  luere  boi^n  not  of  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  the  flesh,  nor  of  the  will  of  man, 
but  of  God}  This  is  the  simplest  and  the  only  true 
explanation  which  can  be  given  of  the  phenomenon 
of  Christian  life.  It  is  a  life  which  Christ  gives  to  as 
many  as  receive  Him,  and  believe  on  His  name.  It 
is  a  life  which  is  unique  in  the  history  of  the  world — 
unique  as  it  was  seen  in  germ  in  the  manifested  life  of 
Christ,  and  unique  as  it  was  displayed  in  its  earliest 
efforts  at  development  in  the  life  and  action  of  His 
first  disciples.  If  the  stream  of  its  existence  had 
come  to  an  end  we  might  hesitate  to  decide  about 
its  origin ;  but  as  every  Christian  has  within  him- 

^  St.  John  i.   1:^,  13. 


sions. 


lect.  VI.  The  Acts. 


self  a  life  which  answers  to  that  of  the  first  believers, 
and  which  he  cannot  but  recognise  as  identical,  or 
at  least  as  cognate  with  it,  he  knows  that  the  stream 
is  flowing  still,  and  is  destined  to  flow  on  for  ever ; 
and,  consequently,  we  cannot  consider  it  premature 
to  adopt  the  inference  suggested  by  Gamaliel 
eighteen  centuries  ago,  and  to  decide  that  a  stream 
which  has  flowed  with  a  volume  so  deep,  and  broad, 
and  strong,  must  have  its  fountain-head  with  God. 

We  might  indeed  tremble  for  the  future  of 
Christianity  if  God  had  left  Himself  utterly  with- 
out witness  in  the  present,  and  we  were  thrown 
back  only  on  the  past,  which  is  ever  receding 
farther  and  farther  from  the  recognition  of  expe- 
rience ;  but,  forasmuch  as  the  power  of  awakening  a 
sympathetic  response  in  the  individual  heart  is 
unquestionably  the  endowment  of  this  religion  in  a 
way  that  no  other  can  boast,  we  may  point  to  this 
characteristic  of  it  as  at  once  a  sufiicient  and  abid- 
ing indication  of  its  true  origin,  and  as  being  also 
the  special  feature  to  which  St.  John  appealed,  in 
saying.  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given  to 
us  eternal  life,  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son} 

It  was  no  development  of  man's  natural  instincts 
of  religion  which  produced  such  a  manifestation  of 
it  as  that  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles ;  but  the  Chris- 
tian life  of  the  first  disciples  Avas  itself  a  supernatural 
production,  pointing  to  the  existence  of  one  who  had 

1    1  John  V.  11. 


264  The  Christ  of  the  Acts.  lect.  vi. 

been  proved  to  be  the  Clirist,  not  because  He  had 
died  upon  the  cross  and  been  buried,  but  because 
He  had  risen  from  the  dead  and  ascended  into 
heaven,  and  had  shed  forth  gifts  of  spiritual  grace 
upon  the  whole  body  of  believers,  showing  Himself 
thus  the  fulfilment  of  psalm  and  prophecy  more  than 
if  He .  had  restored  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel, 
and  had  gathered  in  subjection  to  the  throne  of 
David  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  and  the  glory 
of  them. 


LECTURE   VII. 


THE    CHRIST   OF    THE    PAULINE    EPISTLES. 


IloXXutv  6'  avd^ui'Tuv  '/dsv  ciarsa,  xai  voov  syvu. 

Horn.  Od. 

pues  creo 

De  la  clemencia  divina, 
Que  no  hay  luces  en  el  cielo, 
Que  no  hay  en  el  mar  arenas, 
No  hay  atomos  en  el  viento, 
Que,  sumados  todos  juntos, 
No  sean  niimero  pequeno 
De  los  pecados  que  sabe 
Dios  perdonar. 

Calikron. 


LECTURE  VII. 

Set  your  affection  on  things  above,  not  on  things  on  the  earth.  For 
ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God, — 
Col.  iii.  2,  3. 

The  next  stage  in  the  development  of  that  con- 
ception of  the  Christ  which  is  derived,  or  to  be 
derived,  from  the  New  Testament,  is  supplied  by 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
gave  us  the  picture  of  a  work  in  progress;  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  give  us  the  picture  of  a  work 
done.  No  one  would  hesitate  to  place  the  Acts, 
as  it  stands  in  the  New  Testament,  before  any  of 
the  Epistles,  whatever  the  actual  relative  dates  of 
composition  may  be,  because  for  the  most  part  it 
has  reference  to  a  period  of  time  which  must  have 
preceded  those  events  which  made  it  necessary  for 
the  Epistles  to  be  written.  It  professes  to  supply 
us  with  an  earlier  link  in  the  chain  of  circum- 
stances reaching  from  the  human  life  of  Jesus  to 
the  latest  utterances  of  the  Christian  mind  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  Christian  life  depicted  is 
Christian  life  at  an  earlier  stage.  Nor  is  it  pos- 
sible to  doubt  the  general  accuracy  of  the  portrait 
sketched. 


2  68  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

The  When,  however,  we  come  to  the  Pauline  Epistles, 

ofthr^  we  at  once  enter  upon  ground  even  more  certain 
EpIsUes.  and  clearly  undeniable  still.  Here  we  are  able,  in 
the  case  at  least  of  the  most  important  letters,  to 
fix  the  actual  date  within  a  year  or  two.  And,  in 
fact,  we  may  safely  say  that  the  bulk  of  the 
Pauline  writings  was  in  existence  within  thirty 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  that  in  all 
probability  the  four  great  and  undisputed  Epistles 
were  written  within  five-and-twenty  years  of  that 
time. 

Here,  then,  at  all  events,  we  have  firm  and 
solid  ground  to  tread  upon.  The  letters  to  Eome, 
Corinth,  and  Galatia,  are  undoubted ;  they  were 
written  by  St.  Paul,  and  they  were  sent  to  the 
Christians  at  those  places,  and  sent  within  the  time 
specified.  No  reasonable  doubt  as  to  authorship 
attaches  to  any  of  the  other  letters  to  which  the 
apostle's  name  is  afiixed,  but  here  at  least  we  are 
secure.  We  have  in  the  greatest  of  St.  Paul's 
writings  undoubted  genuine  productions  of  the 
early  Christian  mind,  and  probably  the  very  earliest 
productions.  These  productions,  moreover,  are  in 
the  form  of  letters,  and  their  testimony  is  therefore 
the  more  valuable  from  this  fact.  A  narrative  or 
history  is  always  more  or  less  open  to  the  suspicion 
of  being  written  with  a  bias,  but  a  genuine  letter 
presupposes  a  second  witness  to  the  writer  in  the 
person  to  whom  it  is  written.     Putting  aside  the 


Lect.  VII.  The  Patiline  Epistles.  269 

imaginary  case,  iiiapplical)le  to  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
of  a  letter  being  written  to  a  second  j^erson  for  tlie 
purpose  of  conveying  a  false  impression  to  a  tliircl, 
it  is  not  possible  to  reject  tlie  evidence  supplied 
incidentally  in  the  letters  written  by  St.  Paul  to 
bis  various  correspondents. 

For   example,   they   one    and   all    assume    and  What  the 

.  .  .      .        Epistles 

establish  beyond  dispute  the  existence  of  a  Christian  prove, 
society  in  the  places  to  which  they  were  sent.  They 
tell  us  something  about  the  constitution  of  this 
society,  something  about  its  character  and  life,  and 
a  great  deal  about  the  nature  of  its  belief.  We  are 
able,  at  all  events,  to  gather  from  St.  Paul's  Epistles 
a  very  fair  notion  of  the  kind  of  teaching  which 
the  several  persons  addressed  had  received  from 
him.  What  is  written  is  no  doubt  in  agreement 
with  what  had  been  taught.  Within  five -and - 
twenty  years,  therefore,  after  the  death  of  Christ, 
there  was  a  considerable  society,  in  centres  so  far 
separated  as  Eome  and  Galatia,  of  persons  who 
believed  in  Jesus.  All  these  persons  had  been 
baptised  :  they  were  baptised  in  the  name  of  Jesus, 
or  at  least  in  baptism  they  were  considered  to  have 
put  on  Christ.^  All  these  persons  were  unquestion- 
ably in  the  habit  of  breaking  bread  in  commemo- 
ration of  the  death  of  Jesus.  If  there  is  no  allusion 
to  this  latter  practice  in  the  letters  to  Rome  and 
Galatia,  there  is  abundant  reference  to  it  in  the 

^   Gal.  iii.  27  ;  Eom.  vi.  3. 


270  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

first  of  those   to   the  Corinthians/  who    occupied 
geographically    a    middle    position    between    the 
Eomans  and  Galatians,  and  are  therefore  an  addi- 
tional instance  of  the  extension  of  the  new  society. 
The  It  is  evident,  moreover,  from  these  Epistles,  that 

ofThe^  the  societies  in  question  were  bound  together  by 
ofvvhom  faith  in  one  and  the  same  person,  who  is  called 
t  ^yspea..  j^^^g  Christ;  and  it  is  certain  that  this  was  the 
same  Jesus  of  whom  Ave  read  in  the  Acts,  and 
whose  life  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  From  the 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul  we  have  all  the  principal  facts 
of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  these  correspond  with  what 
we  know  of  it  from  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts. 

For  example,  we  have  His  descent  from  the 
family  of  Abraham  and  from  the  family  of  David  ;^ 
we  have  His  supernatural  birth  implied;^  we  have 
His  sufferings,^  His  betrayal,^  His  rejection  by 
Pilate  and  Herod,^  His  death  upon  the  cross,^  His 
burial,^  His  resurrection  from  the  dead  the  third 
day,^  five  of  His  manifestations  after  His  resur- 
rection,^*^ His  ascension  into  glory,^^  His  session  at 
the  right  hand  of  God,^"  His  return  to  judgment.^-^ 
It  is  impossible,  therefore,  to  doubt  that  the 
person  to  whom  St.  Paul  refers  as  Jesus  Christ  is 

1  1  Cor.  xi.  20-34.  2  q^i  ijj    jq  .  j^om.  i.  3. 

3  Gal.  iv.  4  ;  Rom.  i.  3.       ^   2  Cor.  i.  5.        ^1  Cor.  xi.  23. 

6  1  Cor.  ii.  8.  "'   Gal.  vi.  14.      ^   1  Cor.  xv.  4. 

9  Rom.  vi.  4  ;   1  Cor.  xv.  4.  i"   1  Cor.  xv.  5-7. 

"  Rom.  viii.  17,  29.       ''  Rom.  viii.  34.       '''   1  Cor.  i.  7,  8. 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  271 

the  same  Jesus  of  whom  we  read  in  the  Gospels 
and  the  Acts.  All  the  main  features  of  His  history 
correspond  with  them  as  there  given.  It  is  clear, 
moreover,  that  the  writer  imjJicitly  believed  these 
facts  in  His  history,  and  that  the  persons  to  whom 
he  wrote  believed  them  too.  It  is  certain,  more- Jesus 
over,  that  both  he  and  they  identified  Jesus  withasufe" 
the  Christ,  and  did  so  on  account  of  the  remarkable 
character  of  His  history.  So  manifestly  is  this  the 
case,  that  the  two  names  Jesus  and  Christ  fre- 
quently appear  conjoined  in  the  writings  of  St. 
Paul  as  the  single  appellation  of  one  and  the 
same  person.  It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  both 
with  him  and  those  to  whom  he  writes  that  Jesus 
is  the  Christ.  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  gave  us 
some  account  of  the  process  by  which  men  were 
brought  to  this  conclusion.  In  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul  the  conclusion  is  a  thing  of  the  past. 

And  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  it  was  so  cer-  it  was 
tainly  with  many  people   at  Eome,  Corinth,   and  the  cln- 
Galatia,  five-and-twenty  years   after  the   death  of  wen  as  the 
Christ.     It  is  manifest,  also,  from  the  mere  mention  ^^^^" 
of  these  places,  that  it  must  have  been  so  not  only 
with  the  Jews,  but  even  to  a  larger  extent  with 
the  Gentiles  also.     Though  there  may  have  been 
Jews  among  the   converts  in  all  these  places,  the 
larger  portion  must  have  been  composed  of  Gen- 
tiles.     The  names   of  the  persons  saluted  in  the 
Epistle  to   the  Romans  are  all  of  them  Greek  or 


2/2  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

Roman,  only  one  is  Je\vi«li.^  It  is  impossible  to 
compute  the  aggregate  numbers  of  these  several 
churches,  but  they  must  have  been  many  thousands. 
Among  all  these  people  the  conviction  was  firmly 
established  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Frequently 
He  is  spoken  of  by  no  other  name  than  Christ  or 
the  Christ. 
The  But  everywhere  there  are  traces  of  this  per- 

produced  suasiou  having  been  wirought  by  means  of  the 
Scriptures.  Jewish  Scripturcs.  A  foundation  of  Scriptural 
teaching  is  implied  wherever  the  term  Christ  is 
used,  and  the  references  to  Scripture  statements  are 
frequent.  The  persons  addressed  must  have  been 
very  familiar  with  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
They  must  have  accepted  it  as  an  elemental  prin- 
ciple that  the  Scriptures  spoke  of  a  Christ  to  come. 
Otherwise,  their  baptism  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and 
their  belief  in  Him,  would  have  meant  nothing. 
They  would  have  been  strangers  to  the  import  of 
the  new  name  they  bore,  and  had  so  gladly  adopted. 
The  Romans  are  told  that  the  Gospel  had  been 
promised  before  hy  the  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scrijo- 
tures,'^  that  Jesus  Christ  was  made  of  the  seed  of 
David  according  to  the  ficsh.^  Abraham  and 
David  are  quoted  as  instances  of  persons  who 
were  accounted  righteous  without  the  law,  and 
knew  the  blessedness  of  being  so.*    Everywhere  the 

^   Rom.  xvi.  6.      Greet  M  iry,  icho  bestowed  much  labour  on  us. 
■'  Rom.  i.  2.  ^  Rom.  i.  3.  *  Gal.  iii.  G  ;  Rom.  iv.  6. 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  273 

writer  speaks  as  to  them  that  hioiv  the  law}  The 
Corinthians  are  reminded  that  whatsoever  things 
happened  unto  Israel,  hcq^pened  unto  thmi  for  en- 
samples :  and  they  are  written,  he  says,  for  our 
admonition,  upon  ivhom  the  ends  of  the  ivorld  are 
come}  They  are  taught  that  Christ  died  for  our 
sins  according  to  the  Scriptures,  that  He  was 
buried,  and  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to 
the  Scriptures.^  The  Galatians  are  instructed  from 
the  allegories  of  the  Law*  the  greater  excellence  of 
the  way  of  faith  which  they  had  forsaken.  All 
this  is  evidence  of  a  marvellous  revolution  of 
thought,  but  it  is  a  revolution  which  is  presupposed 
in  their  condition  as  Christians. 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  then,  are  evidence  (1)  The 
that,  in  all  the  churches  to  which  they  were  ad- conobo- 
dressed  the  same  conclusion  had  been  arrived  at  of  Acts  and 
which  we  found  traces  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  Gospels. 
and  in  the  Gospels — namely,  that  a  Jesus  who  had 
been  crucified  was  the  Christ ;  and  (2)  that  it  had 
been  arrived  at  principally,  or  in  part,  through  the 
influence  of  the  Scriptures. 

It  is  surely  remarkable  that  in  persons  whose 
intellectual  and  moral  peculiarities  must  have  been 
so  difierent  as  those  of  the  Eomans,  Corinthians, 
and  Galatians,  not  only  the  same  result  should  have 
been    obtained,    but    that    it    should    have    been 

^   Rom.  vii.  1.  2    j  Cor.  x.  11. 

^   1  Cor.  XV.  3,  4.  4  Gal.  iv.  24. 


2  74  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 

obtained  by  the  same  logical  process — namely, 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  spoke  of 
a  Christ,  and  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  of  whom 
they  spoke.  It  cannot  be  regarded  as  an  idiosyn- 
crasy of  particular  cases,  for  it  was  the  universal 
and  unvarying  characteristic  of  the  faith  in  Jesus, 
wherever  it  was  spread  abroad.  The  moral  lever 
by  which  the  early  heathen  world  was  converted  to 
what  we  call  Christianity,  was  the  complete  fulfil- 
ment in  the  person  of  Jesus  of  the  prophetic  ideal 
of  the  Christ.  And  of  the  extent  to  which  this 
conversion  had  spread  within  thirty  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ,  the  Epistles  to  Thessalonica,  Eome, 
Corinth,  Galatia,  Philippi,  Colossse,  Ephesus,  are 
sufficient  and  conclusive  evidence.  They  are  the 
historic  proof  of  the  development  and  acceptance  of 
the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the  Christ  at  that  time, 
and  to  that  extent,  and  to  that  degree. 
They  Furthermore,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  as  we  have 

general  them,  are  evidence  to  a  large  extent,  as  has  long 
worthiness  ago  bccu  shown,^  of  the  generally  trustworthy  and 
history  of  authentic  character  of  the  history  of  the  Acts ;  -  and 
the  Acts.    ^1^^^  would  be  evidence,  even  if  that  book  did  not 

^  By  Paley  in  the  Kotcb  Paulinw. 

2  So  Professor  Jowett  says,  speaking  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
Thessalonians :  "  The  statements  of  the  Epistle  are  a  real  confir- 
mation of  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  ;  and  the  degree  of  coinci- 
dence in  the  narrative  of  the  Acts  is  a  sufficient  evidence  that  the 
Epistle  must  have  been  written  on  the  second* Apostolical  journey." 
— Fpistlea  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  p.  36. 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  275 

exist,  of  a  period  and  condition  somewhat  similar 
to  those  therein  described  having  preceded  the 
acceptance  of  the  Gospel  in  the  various  centres  to 
which  they  were  addressed.  The  condition  of  im- 
planted and  established  faith  to  which  they  witness 
could  only  have  been  brought  about,  as  indeed  they 
themselves  show  it  was,  by  a  long-continued  course 
of  itinerant  and  missionary  effort,  such  as  that 
which  the  Acts  ascribe  to  Paul  and  Barnabas,  and 
the  other  early  preachers  of  the  faith.  Even  if  the 
Acts  could  be  shown,  which  they  cannot,  to  be  un- 
historic,^  the  Epistles  which  are  undeniably  genuine 
would  show  that  the  state  of  things  to  which  they 
witness  must  have  been  preceded  by  an  historic 
period  not  altogether  dissimilar  from  that  which 

1  "  Whatever  may  be  tlie  reason,  tlie  auioiuit  of  discrepancy 
between  tbe  earlier  chapters  of  the  Acts  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Galatians  contrasts  with  the  precise  agreement  of  the  later  chapters 
with  the  Epistles  to  the  Romans  and  Corinthians,  as  well  as  with 
the  internal  consistency  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  itself.  In 
inquiries  of  this  sort  it  is  often  supposed  that,  if  the  evidence  of 
the  genuineness  of  a  single  book  of  Scripture  be  weakened,  or  the 
credit  of  a  single  chapter  shaken,  the  whole  is  overthrown.  Some- 
times the  danger  of  losing  the  whole  is  made  an  argument  against 
criticism  of  any  part.  Much  more  true  it  is  that,  in  short  portions 
or  single  verses  of  Scripture  the  whole  is  contained.  Had  we  but 
one  discourse  of  Christ,  one  Epistle  of  Paul,  more  than  half 
would  have  been  preserved." — Jowett,  EfidUs  of  St.  Pmd,  vol.  i. 
p.  400.  It  is  precisely  in  this  belief  that  the  object  of  the  present 
lectures  has  been  to  show  how  much  virtually  remains  as  a  solid 
basis  for  faith  after  the  largest  critical  concessions  have  been 
made. 


276  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

the  Acts  bad  fictitiously  described.  Indeed,  tbe 
Epistles  tbemselves  are  abundant  evidence  to  tbe 
"Acts"  manner  of  life,  aiid  babitual  conduct  of  one  at 
least  of  tbe  apostles,  namely  Paul  bimself.  He  bas 
left  on  permanent  record,  in  tbe  Second  Epistle  to  tbe 
Corintbians,^  tbe  kind  of  life  wbicb  be  and  bis  fel- 
low-disciples bad  voluntarily  undertaken,  in  tbe  long 
catalogue  of  sufferings  by  wbicb  be  proved  bimself 
tbe  minister  of  Cbrist.  He  must  bave  been  a  mad- 
man, or  a  fool,  to  bave  acted  in  sucb  a  way  for  no 
conceivable  end,  unless  tbe  end  for  wbicb  be  acted 
was  so  plainly  set  before  bim,  tbat  as  a  wise  man 
be  could  not  refuse  to  suffer  gladly  tbe  loss  of  all 
tbings  for  it.  And  to  tbe  end  of  time  bis  life  and 
cbaracter,  as  portrayed  in  bis  own  writings,  will  be 
an  unsolved  and  insoluble  enigma  to  all  wbo  are 
ignorant  of  or  wbo  reject  tbe  key  to  it,  wbicb  par- 
ticipation in  tbe  faitb  and  bope  and  love  of  tbe 
writer,  and  tbat  alone,  supplies. 
The  But  ao^ain,   as  tbe  Epistles  of  St.   Paul  are  a 

Epistles  .  "^  ^      „  .  1       . 

Witness  to  tbe  marvellous  progress  01  laitb  m 
Jesus,  witbin  tbirty  years  after  tbe  crucifixion,  so 
tbey  are  clear  evidence  likewise  to  tbe  general 
cbaracter  of  tbat  faitb  as  it  Avas  embraced  by  tbe 
writer  bimself.  Tbey  contain  tbe  record  of  bis 
mind  probably  for  tbe  last  ten  or  a  dozen  years  of  bis 
life.     It  is  impossible  tbat  in  tbat  period  be  sbould 

^   Chaps,  vi.  and  xi. 


witness 
to  the 
writer's 
faith. 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  277 

not  have  been  subject  to  the  modification  and 
growth  of  wider  experience  and  of  longer  life/ 
But  the  substantial  framework  of  his  belief  is  as 
manifest  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians  as 
it  is  in  the  Second  Epistle  to  Timothy.  It  is  still  the 
same  Jesus  who  was  killed  ^  by  the  Jews  about 
twenty  years  before,  who  is  acknowledged  as  both 
Lord  and  Christ ;  it  is  He  who  is  to  return  to 
judgment,  who  therefore  hath  ascended  up  on  high.^ 
There  can  be  no  question  whatever  as  to  the  reality 
of  the  person  spoken  of,  or  as  to  His  identity.  It 
was  no  dream,  it  could  have  been  no  impersona- 
tion of  a  vague  idea,  no  concrete  embodiment  of  a 
mere  notion  or  set  of  notions.  The  Thessalonians 
had  been  taught  to  wait  for  the  Son  of  the  living 
and  true  God  from  heaven,  whom  he  raised  from 
the  dead,  even  Jesus.^  Here  was  the  entire  founda- 
tion assumed  of  facts  which  must  have  taken  place 
but  little  more  than  twenty  years  before  they  had 

^  "  There  is  a  growth  in  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  it  is  true  ; 
but  it  is  the  growth  of  Christian  life,  not  of  intellectual  progress, — 
the  growth  not  of  reflection,  but  of  spiritual  experience,  enlarging 
as  the  world  widens  before  the  Apostle's  eyes,  passing  from  life  to 
death,  or  from  strife  to  peace,  with  the  changes  in  the  Apostle's  own 
life,  or  the  circumstances  of  his  converts.  There  is  a  rest  also  in 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  discernible  not  in  forms  of  thought  or 
types  of  doctrine,  but  in  the  person  of  Christ  himself,  who  is  his 
centre  in  every  Epistle,  however  various  may  be  his  modes  of  ex- 
pression, or  his  treatment  of  controversial  q^uestions." — Jowett, 
Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  vol.  i.  p.  3. 

2   1  Thess.  ii.  15,  19.  M.  10.  *  i.  9,  10. 


278  The  Christ  of 


Lp:ct.  VII. 


been  proclaimed  to  the  Thessalonians  :  ^  tlie  natural 
liuman  life,  the  death,  the  resurrection,  the  ascen- 
sion of  a  person  who  is  called  Jesus,  and  is  acknow- 
ledged as  the  Christ,  and  to  such  an  extent,  and  for 
so  long,  that  the  two  names  have  become  incor- 
porated into  one,  Jesus  Christ,  expressing  at  once 
both  the  office  and  the  person  filling  the  office. 
When  we  remember  that  this  same  Epistle  makes 
mention  of  the  churches  of  God  ivhich  in  Judcea 
were  in  Christ  Jesus, '^  and  implies  both  that  they 
had  undergone  persecution  and  that  the  Thessa- 
lonians were  partakers  with  them  of  a  common 
faith,  and  of  a  similar  persecution  for  the  sake  of 
Jesus,  we  see  at  once  that  a  considerable  portion 
of  this  twenty  years  is  virtually  bridged  over  by  the 
period  of  time  requisite  fon  the  transmission  of  the 


^  If  we  place  the  date  of  the  crucifixion  March  27,  a. D.  31, 
and  the  founding  of  the  church  at  Thessalonica,  a.d,  52,  the  actual 
interval  would  have  been  about  one-and-twenty  years,  but  it  can 
hardly  have  been  more.  Some  with  less  probability  place  the 
date  of  the  crucifixion,  April  7,  a.d.  30.  Even  if  the  preaching  of 
Paul  at  Thessalonica  is  brought  down  to  a.d.  53,  the  greatest  possible 
interval  is  three-and-twenty  years,  which  is  virtually  lessened  by 
the  considerations  mentioned  in  the  text.  We  have  a  genuine 
letter  of  a.d.  53,  containing  incidental  reference  to  sundry  events, 
which,  on  the  evidence  of  the  same  letter,  had  been  well  knoAvn  for 
several  years  before  in  the  country  where  they  occurred,  and  which, 
from  the  collateral  and  independent  evidence  of  another  letter  (the 
Epistle  to  the  Galatians),  written  not  later  than  a.d.  58,  must  have 
been  familiar  to  the  writer  for  a  period  of  nearly  twenty  years 
when  it  was  written.  ^   1  Thess.  ii.  14. 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  2  79 

faith  from  Palestine  to  Macedonia,  from  Asia  to 
Europe,  and  for  that  personal  change  in  the  writer 
himself,  which  we  know  from  other  sources  had 
taken  place,  and  to  which  he  alludes  here  when  he 
says,  he  was  allowed  of  God  to  he  put  in  trust  with 
the  Gospel} 

It  becomes  then  morally  and  absolutely  impos-  The  events 
sible,  that  in  the  brief  space  of  a  dozen  or  fifteen  certain, 
years,  which  is  the  utmost  that  remains  unaccounted 
for  after  the  known  historic  death  of  the  person 
called  Christ,  and  the  rise  of  the  churches  here  men- 
tioned in  Judcea,  there  should  have  gathered  any 
haze  of  uncertainty  as  to  the  actual  character  of  the 
events  alluded  to  as  the  death  and  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians.  We  have  what  amounts  practically  to  an 
unbroken  chain  of  corroborative  testimony,  extending 
from  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  to  the  time,  twenty 
years  later,  when,  in  an  important  maritime  city  of 
Macedonia,  He  was  implicitly  believed  in  as  the 
Christ,  and  multitudes  were  prepared  to  submit  to 
persecution  rather  than  surrender  that  belief.  Is 
there  anything  but  the  actual  historic  reality  of  the 
main  events  recorded  in  the  Gospels  to  which  a 
revolution  so  momentous  can  satisfactorily  be  re- 
ferred? This  is  a  question  which  irresistibly  sug- 
gests itself  to  us,  and  there  does  not  seem  to  be  any 
reasonable  answer  to  it  but  one. 

'  1  Thess.  ii.  4. 


2  8o  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 

It  is  important,  however,  to  observe,  that  what- 
ever we  may  regard  as  the  ultimate  drift  of  the 
First  Epistle  to  the  Thcssalonians,  it  is  impossible 
to  be  unconscious  of  the  basis  of  historic  fact  under- 
lying it  which  we  everywhere  encounter.  No  less 
than  four  times  is  the  death ^  of  Jesus  spoken  of; 
twice  His  resurrection  from  the  dead^  is  distinctly 
declared  as  an  article  of  the  common  faith ;  five 
times  allusion  is  made  to  His  future  return,^  It  is 
true  that,  for  the  most  part,  this  reference  is  inci- 
dental, but  it  is  all  the  more  Avorthy  of  our  attention 
from  that  circumstance.  The  substratum  of  solid 
fact  is  broad  and  deep,  or  else  we  should  not  so 
often  come  upon  it. 

We  see,  moreover,  that  the  teaching  which  had 
been  imparted  to  the  Thcssalonians  is  spoken  of  as 
the,  Gospel.  It  is  our  Gospel ;  the  Gospel  of  God  ; 
the  Gospel  of  Christ.  It  is  called  the  ivord  of  God. 
It  is  said  to  have  come  to  them  in  p)oiver  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost;  to  have  been  received  with  joy,  not  as 
the  word  of  men,  hut  as  the  word  of  God,  which 
wrought  effectually  in  th&tn  that  believed.  It  was 
recognised  apparently  as  the  Gospel  of  salvation  by 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  a  Gospel  which 
required  holiness  of  life,  and  the  Thcssalonians  had 
Ijeen  charged  to  lualk  worthy  of  God,  who  had  called 
them  u)/to  his  kingdom  and  glory.    All  this  reminds 

^   1  Thess.  i.  10  ;  ii.  15  ;  iv.  14  ;  v.  10.  "  i.  10  ;  iv.  14. 

^  i.  10  ;  ii.  19  ;  iii.  13  ;  iv.  16  ;  v.  23. 


lect.  VII.  The  Pmiline  Epistles.  281 

us  vividly  of  that  gospel  of  the  kingdo^n  which  had 
been  the  one  theme  of  Christ's  preaching.  The 
alternate  and  concurrent  affliction  and  joy  with 
which  it  had  been  received  at  Thessalonica  corre- 
sponds exactly  with  the  account  of  its  reception 
everywhere,  as  recorded  in  the  Acts.  If  in  Asia 
Minor  the  disciples  had  been  reminded  that  we  must 
through  much  tribulation  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
God}  we  read  in  the  letter  to  Thessalonica,  Verily, 
when  we  were  imth  you,  we  told  you  before  that  ive 
should  suffer  tribulation ;  even  as  it  came  to  pass, 
and  ye  knoio.^  If  the  mission  of  Philip  to  Samaria 
had  caused  great  joy  in  that  city, ^  the  Thessalonians 
are  not  only  exhorted  to  rejoice  evermore,^  but  their 
first  entrance  into  the  Gospel  was  with  joy  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. ^  On  the  other  hand,  the  message  of 
the  Gospel  had  found  them  in  a  state  of  idolatry ;  it 
was  jrom  idols  that  they  had  turned  to  serve  the 
living  and  true  God,  and  to  ivait  for  his  Son  from 
heaven.^  It  is  impossible  not  to  accept  all  this  as 
a  literal  and  accurate  statement  of  the  condition  of 
the  church  at  Thessalonica.  But  it  implies  as  cer- 
tainly, in  the  disciples  there,  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
main  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus ;  a  belief  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  as  documents  which  had  been 
fulfilled  in  Him,  for  otherwise  He  would  not  have 
been  received  as  Christ ;    a   recognition  of  Him  as 

^  Acts  xiv.  22.  ^   1  Thess.  iii.  4.  ^  Acts  viii.  8. 

*   1  Thess.  V.  16.  '  i.  C>.  '  i.  9,  10. 


2  82  The  Christ  of  Lf.ct.  v ii  . 

the  Son  of  God,  who  within,  perhaps,  the  last  twenty 
years,  had  lived  and  died  on  earth,  and  had  ascended 
into  heaven;  a  conviction  that,  in  some  way  or 
other,  they  were  partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
consequence  of  their  faith  in  Jesus,  which  reminds 
us  of  various  accounts  in  the  Acts  describing  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  of  the  promise 
ascribed  to  John  the  Baptist, — he  shall  baptize  you 
ivith  the  Holy  Ghost. ^ 

A  revolution  of  thought  more  remarkable  than 
that  which  is  thus  implied  it  is  impossible  to  con- 
ceive ;  but  of  the  fact  the  Epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians  are  the  abiding  monument,  and,  being  in 
all  probability  the  very  earliest  Christian  writings 
extant,  they  are  invaluable  as  an  index  of  Christian 
faith  at  that  time,  of  the  progress  it  had  made,  and 
of  the  means  by  which  it  had  been  diffused.  The 
faith  of  the  Thessalonian  church  was  substantially 
the  faith  of  the  Gospels  and  the  Acts.  The  Jesus  of 
the  one  was  the  Jesus  of  the  others,  and  undistin- 
guishable  from  the  person  who  is  known  to  us  in 
history  as  having  suflfered  death  in  the  reign  of 
Tiberius  Caesar.^  Within  about  twenty  years  after 
that  event  the  story  of  His  death  had  penetrated,  at 

1  St.  Matt.  iii.  11  ;  St.  Luke,  iii.  16. 

2  Tac.  Ann.  xv.  44.  The  words  cannot  be  too  often  quoted  : — 
"  Ergo  abolendo  rumori  Nero  subdidit  reos,  qnsesitissimis  poenis 
adfecit,  quos,  per  flagitia  invisos,  vulgus  Chi-istianos  adpellabat. 
Auctor  nominis  ejus  Christus,  Tiberio  imperitante,  per  Procurato- 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  283 

all  events,  as  far  as  Macedonia,  and  had  produced 
the  peculiar  results  of  which  the  apostle's  writings 
are  proof,  in  a  body  of  men  who  had  renounced 
idolatry,  and  given  evidence  of  a  moral  reformation, 
and  become  so  attached,  not  to  the  memory,  but  to 
the  person  of  Jesus,  that  they  were  willing  to  endure 
persecution  for  His  name's  sake.  The  comparatively 
brief  space  of  time  which  had  elapsed  between  the 
kno^\Ti  occurrence  of  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus,  and 
the  prevalence  of  belief  in  Him  as  the  Christ  and 
the  Son  of  God,  which  must  have  obtained  for 
several  years  before  Paul  preached  at  Thessalonica, 
precludes  the  possibility  of  the  events  proclaimed 
being  cunningly  devised  fables,  as  far  at  least  as  the 
circumstances  of  His  life  and  death  are  concerned ; 
and  that  life  and  death  alone  would  have  been  in- 
sufficient to  suggest  the  notion  that  He  was  the 
Christ,  or  to  produce  the  results  which  we  know  to 
have  been  produced.  Here  again  then,  as  before, 
everything  turns  upon  the  testimony  which  was 
borne  to  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  The  desire  to  repre- 
sent Him  as  the  Christ  would  have  occurred  to  no 
one,  had  not  the  events  which  followed  His  death 
suggested  it ;  and  certainly  the  results  which  every- 
where followed  the  proclamation  of  Him    as   the 

rem  Pontium  Pilatum  supplicio  adfectus  erat  ;  repressaque  in  prse- 
sens  exitiabilis  superstitio  riirsus  erunipebat,  non  luodo  per  Judseam, 
originem  ejus  mali,  sed  per  urbem  etiam,  quo  cuiicta  imdique  atrocia 
ant  pudenda  confluunt  celebranturque." 


284  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 

Christ  are  more  intelligible,  on  the  supposition  that 
those  events  were  realities,  than  they  are  upon  the 
alternative  su^iposition  that  they  were  not. 
especially  And  this  becomes  even  more  evident  when  we 

take  into  take  into  account  the  means  by  which  the  results 
the°means  wcrc  brouglit  about.  The  Epistles  to  Thessalonica 
emp  oye  .  -j^^^^  ^^^  uamcs  of  three  men  of  whom  we  know 
scarcely  anything  but  what  is  told  us  in  the  Acts. 
It  is  plain  that  they  were  the  authors  of  the  revolu- 
tion. These  itinerant  preachers  had  carried  the  pro- 
clamation that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  through  Pales- 
tine and  Asia  Minor  into  Macedonia,  so  as  to  work 
conviction  and  moral  reformation  in  men  who  had 
before  been  idolaters.  This  had  not  been  done  with 
flattering  words  nor  for  the  hope  of  gain ;  their 
exhortation  had  not  been  of  deceit,  nor  of  unclean- 
ness,  nor  in  guile,  but  as  before  God  which  trieth  the 
hearts,  so  that  they  could  say.  Ye  are  witnesses,  and 
God  also,  how  liolily  and  justly  and  unhlameahly  we 
behaved  ourselves  among  you  that  believe} 

Eesults  so  remarkable,  which  become  more  re- 
markable when  we  consider  the  agency  which  pro- 
duced them,  cannot  be  separated  from  the  funda- 
mental assertion  by  which  they  were  preceded  and 
accompanied,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  This  asser- 
tion, like  a  thread  of  different  colour,  runs  through 
the  tissue  and  texture,  not  only  of  this,  but  of  every 
Epistle.     It  is  the  foundation  corner-stone  which  lies 

1    1  Thess.  ii.  10. 


LiiCT.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  285 

at  the  bottom  of  the  whole  edifice  of  Pcauline  teacli- 
ing.     It  is  the  stout  knotted  gnarled  root  which 
bears  up  the  trunk  and  branches  of  the  tree.     All 
the  ethical  precepts,  and  the  wdse  moral  exhorta- 
tion so  abundant  everywhere  and  so  conspicuously 
excellent  are  but  the  flowers  and  fruit  of  this  fair 
and  wide-spreading  tree.     It  w^as  because  believers 
were  engrafted  into  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  declared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God  with  jDOwer  according  to  the 
Spirit  of  holiness  by  the  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
that  they  were  not  only  required  and  exhorted  to  be 
holy  as  He  was  holy,  but  had  likewise  themselves 
received  an  impulse  to  holiness  to  w^hich  they  had 
before  been  strangers.     It  was  because  the  disciples 
at  Colossse  had  been  taught  and  believed  that  they 
were  dead  and  risen  with  Christ  that  the   appeal 
could  reach  them,  to  s&t  their  affections  on  things 
above,  and  not  on  things  on  the  earth.  We  may  fairly 
claim  the  high,  novel,  and  unexampled  moral  tone 
everyw^here  pervading  these  early  Christian  writings 
as  the  most  satisfactory  and  conclusive  evidence  of 
the  reality  of  that  operation  and  influence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  which  they  speak  so  much.     If  ever 
the  tree  is  known  by  his  fruits  whether  it  is  good 
or  bad,  we  can  have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  on 
the  character  of  these  fruits.     And  if  they  were  the 
undeniable  and  unique  production  of  a  tree  which 
specially  claimed  to  be  of  the  Divine  planting,  then 
certainly,  so  far  as  the  fruits  could  be  evidence  of  it. 


286  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

the  claim  was  made  good.  Before  the  tree  could 
be  shown  to  be  one  which  the  Lord  had  not  planted, 
it  would  be  requisite,  not  only  to  call  in  C[uestion 
the  evidence  upon  which  that  one  fact  rested  which 
declared  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  and  which,  as  far  as 
the  senses  are  concerned,  could  never  be  conclusive ; 
but  likewise  to  disprove,  which  was  not  possible,  the 
abiding  testimony  of  those  living  fruits  which  ever 
accompanied  the  recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
and  of  which  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  the  true 
measure,  as  they  are  the  unalterable  expression. 
These  These  early  writings,  then,  may  be  taken  as  ori- 

cany  S  ginal  aucl  genuine  exponents  of  the  doctrine  or  reli- 
eariie?^"  giou  of  the  Christ  as  it  was  declared  and  accepted 
within  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  Jesus  had  been 
crucified.  The  writings  themselves  contain  internal 
and  incidental  evidence  that  substantially  the  same 
belief  had  been  in  vogue  for  a  period  of  at  least 
twelve  or  fifteen  years  previously.  (The  Epistle  to 
the  Galatians  alone  shows  this.)  Consequently  we 
are  carried  back  by  undeniable  and  documentary 
evidence  to  a  time  distant  by  about  ten  years  only 
from  the  principal  events  upon  which  the  belief  as 
it  was  received  was  based. 

For  we  cannot  separate  the  earliest  expressions 
of  that  belief  from  the  historic  event  of  the  death  of 
Jesus.  The  same  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  speaks  of 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  in  terms 
which  leave  no  doubt  upon  the  mind  that  the  events 


time 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pmiline  Epistles.  287 

referred  to  were  the  actual  crucifixion  of  Jesus  and 
the  resurrection  which  was  declared  to  have  succeeded 
it.  What  the  Apostle's  faith  was  at  the  time  of 
writing  this  letter,  that  it  had  been  certainly  for 
fourteen,  possibly  for  seventeen,  years  before,  and 
possibly  even  for  a  yet  longer  period.^  He  bears 
implicit  and  emphatic  witness  that  it  had  and  could 
have  undergone  no  material  change.  So  that  when 
he  first  became  possessed  by  the  conviction  that  the 
crucified  and  risen  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  there  had 
elapsed  but  an  interval  of  time  since  His  death 
which  was  fairly  and  accurately  within  the  grasp  of 

^  It  is  plain  that  St.  Paul  identifies  the  Gospel  which  he  preached 
to  the  Galatians  (i.  11)  with  that  which  he  had  received  at  his  con- 
version (i.  12-16).  There  can  have  been  no  material  change  in  his 
own  belief  during  that  interval,  or  he  would  not  have  spoken  as  he 
does  in  the  first  chapter.  It  would  also  seem  that  all  the  events 
alluded  to  in  Galatians  i.  and  ii.  had  preceded  the  first  preaching  in 
Galatia,  and  therefore  the  period  virtually  covered  by  this  Epistle 
must  be  miich  greater  than  that  given  in  the  text.  At  all  events, 
it  carries  i;s  back  to  the  time  of  St.  Paul's  conversion.  Professor 
Jowett  places  "  an  interval  of  four  or  five  years  "  between  the  Epistles 
to  the  Thessalonians  and  that  to  the  Galatians. — Efistles,  i.  281. 
I  cannot  accept  the  inference  drawn  by  him  that  in  Galatians  v.  1 1 
and  2  Cor.  v.  16  (vol.  i.  p.  8  seq^.)  we  have  indications  of  what 
would  have  been  a  natural  change  of  belief  in  St.  Paul  himself 
after  his  conversion.  !Much  more  in  accordance  with  the  truth,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  is  the  remark  of  Alford  on  2  Cor.  v.  16 — "  The 
fact  alluded  to  in  the  concessive  clause,  is,  not  any  personal  know- 
ledge of  the  Lord  Jesus  while  He  was  on  earth,  but  that  view  of 
Him  which  Paul  took  hefore  his  conversion,  when  he  knew  Him  only 
according  to  His  outward  apparent  standing  in  this  world,  only  as 
Jesus  of  Nazareth."     The  italics  are  his. 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 


memory.  What  is  a  period  of  ten  or  even  fifteen 
years  for  any  man  in  middle  life  to  look  back  upon? 
Not  seldom  casual  words,  fragments  of  conversations, 
and  the  most  commonplace  incidents  which  happened 
at  that  distance  of  time,  retain  their  hold  upon  the 
memory  with  unrelaxed  tenacity,  and  remain  en- 
graven on  the  imagination  with  indelible  clearness. 
And  how  much  more  is  it  so  with  public  events  of 
prominent  and  of  stirring  import !  Let  any  one  of 
us  seek  to  recall  events,  personal  or  public,  which 
happened  ten  years  ago.  Is  it  possible  that  we  can 
be  deceived  about  them  ?  The  haze  of  distance 
may  indeed  invest  them  at  times  with  indistinct- 
ness, and  give  them,  all  the  appearance  of  unreality, 
no  matter  how  vivid  our  recollection  of  them  may  be  ; 
and  not  unfrequently  it  may  seem  hard  to  believe 
that  circumstances  actually  occurred  through  which 
we  are  conscious  that  we  ourselves  have  passed. 
Events  But  docs  the  converse  ever  happen  ?  Does  any  man 
fmagbeiit  1^  ^i^  scuscs  cvcr  beUevc  that  events  actually  took 
place  ten  years  ago  which  exist  only  in  his  own  ima- 
gination ?  Is  it  possible  that  internal  impressions  of 
his  own  should  be  able  to  project  themselves  on  the 
outer  world  so  vividly  as  to  beget  the  belief  that 
they  had  a  veritable  existence  in  the  world  of  fact  ? 
And  is  it  possible  for  impressions  so  projected  to 
have  a  conspicuous  and  remarkable  influence  on  his 
whole  after  life  ?  And  is  it  possible  that  the  writer, 
when  the  Son  of  God  was  revealed  in  him,  when 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  289 

that  revel  atiou  of  Jesus  Christ  of  which  he  speaks  ^ 
had  become  a  spiritual  fact  to  his  consciousness, 
should,  out  of  the  consciousness  so  influenced,  have 
projected  into  the  world  of  fact  a  life,  death,  and 
resurrection,  which  had  no  existence,  which  were 
but  the  offspring  of  his  own  perverted  imagination 
and  distempered  f^mcy — it  being  all  the  while  a 
known  fact  that  a  life  and  death  under  similar  cir- 
cumstances had  taken  place  in  Jerusalem  about  ten 
years  ^  before,  and  that  it  was  this  person  so  living 
and  dying  whom  he  believed  to  be  the  Christ  ? 
Surely  the  question  is  one  which  forthwith  answers 
itself. 

On  the  other  hand,  however,  it  must  not  be  but  may 

be  misun- 

forgotten  that  there  are  many  events  which  have  derstood. 
happened,  whether  to  ourselves  or  to  the  world  at 
large,  which  we  have  not  adequately  understood 
till  long  after  they  have  happened.  It  is  not  always 
easy  to  recognise  the  full  significance  of  events  at 
the  time  when  they  occur.  The  life  and  death  of 
Jesus  Christ  were  events  of  which  St.  Paul  can 
hardly  have  been  unconscious  at  the  time  when 
they  took  place.  His  own  determined  opposition 
to  the  faith  which  he  afterwards  preached,  is  proof, 
at  all  events,  of  the  identity  of  the  Jesus  whom 
he  preached  with  the  Jesus  whom  he  had  opposed. 

1   Gal.  i.  15,  16. 

^  The  real  interval  was  probably  much  less.     Saul's  conversion 
is  placed  by  Alford  in  a.d.  37.     It  may  have  been  earlier, 
U 


290  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

And  even  if  liis  faith  could  be  accounted  for  as  a 
tiling  devoid  of  historic  foundation,  the  same  could 
not  be  said  for  his  vehement  opposition.  If  it  was 
an  imaginary  or  unreal  Jesus  in  whom  he  believed, 
it  must  have  been  a  real  historic  Jesus  whom  he 
persecuted,  and  the  same  Jesus  whose  life  and  death 
we  have  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and  mentioned  in 
the  Acts. 

AVhile,  therefore,  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
virtually  carries  us  back,  as  a  witness  to  the  historic 
reality  of  the  events  implied,  to  a  very  short  period 
after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  to  events  contem- 
poraneous with  the  early  manhood  of  the  writer,  it 
is  also  a  permanent  witness  to  the  changed  aspect 
in  which  he  had  learnt  to  regard  these  events. 
A  name  which  had  once  been  hateful  to  him,  and 
to  which  he  had  offered  strenuous  and  bitter  op- 
position, had  now  for  more  than  fourteen  years  been 
the  object  of  devoted  and  affectionate  regard.  He 
had  himself  been  the  principal  agent  in  making 
known  that  name.  He  had  been  taught  the  mean- 
ing of  an  event  which  had  hapj^ened  within  his  own 
recollection,  and  which  was  unquestionable;  and  he 
could  now  say,  /  aifn  crucified  with  Christ :  never- 
theless I  live ;  yet  not  I,  hit  Christ  liveth  in  me: 
and  the  life  which  I  now  live  in  the  flesh  I  live  hy 
the  faith  of  the  Son  of  God,  who  loved  me,  and 
gave  himself  for  me.  ^ 

'   Oal.  ii.  20. 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pmiline  Epistles.  291 

And  the  whole  point  of  the  change  which  had  The 

import  of 

passed  upon  him  was  involved  in  that  word  Christ,  the  word 
About  the  death  of  Jesus  there  was  and  could  be 
no  question ;  the  only  question  was,  Who  was  He 
that  had  died  ?  It  was  not  about  the  reality  of 
certain  facts,  without  which  the  persecution  of 
St.  Paul  was  as  unintelligible  as  his  conversion,  but 
about  the  meaning  and  import  of  those  facts.  Had 
Jesus  died  for  Himself  or  for  others  ?  Was  His 
death  the  one  event  anticipated  in  the  Scriptures 
and  fulfilling  them,  or  was  it  not  ?  If  His  death 
was  but  the  natural  culmination  of  His  life,  did  not 
His  life  and  death  together  show  that  the  story  of 
His  resurrection,  which  Paul  himself  had  before 
rejected,  might  after  all  be  possibly  not  untrue  ? 
And  if  His  resurrection  was  a  fact,  did  not  that 
event,  together  with  His  life  and  death,  combine  to 
throw  a  flood  of  light  upon  the  whole  of  the  Old 
Testament,  which  nothing  else  could  throw  ? 

We  indeed  may  reason  thus  upon  the  facts  before 
us,  but  we  cannot  thus  reproduce  the  line  of  reason- 
ing in  the  Apostle's  mind.  To  him  there  was  a 
yet  more  cogent  argument,  to  which  he  is  himself 
a  witness.  The  persecuted  and  risen  Jesus  had 
revealed  Himself  in  him.  He  had  given  that 
revelation  of  Himself  to  the  inner  world  of  his 
spiritual  consciousness  of  which  he  speaks  in  the 
opening  of  his  letter  to  the  Galatian  church.  To 
resist  that  revelation  would  have  been  to  resist  the 


292  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

Holy  Gliost :  to  resist  the  force  of  inevitable  moral 
conviction.  He  could  not  resist  it.  He  was  con- 
strained to  surrender  himself  from  henceforth  a 
willing  and  obedient  servant  to  the  Jesus  whom  he 
had  persecuted.  And  his  life  remains  to  this  day 
an  indestructible  monument  to  the  vitality  and 
significance  of  those  events,  whose  historic  reality  it 
is  impossible  to  deny. 
The  We  are  led,  then,  by  these  considerations  to  the 

ofHiT  further  question,  which  can  hardly  fail  to  suggest 
to^tL*^^  itself  to  every  one,  and  of  which  so  much  has  often- 
°^^^  ^"  times  been  made :  How  is  it  that  the  Ejiistles  of 
St.  Paul  are  so  different  in  their  character  from  the 
Gospels  ?  Is  it  possible  that  the  Christ  of  the 
Gospels  can  be  the  Christ  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  ?  If 
we  take  St.  Paul  for  our  guide  in  his  representation 
of  Christianity,  do  we  not  necessarily  reject  that  con- 
ception of  it  which  has  been  embodied  in  the  Gospels? 
In  attempting  to  deal  with  this  question  we 
must  remember  that  St.  Paul's  Epistles  may  be  taken 
as  the  accurate  record  of  the  effect  produced  upon  his 
own  mind  by  the  events  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  as  those 
events  interpreted  themselves  to  him.  They  are  also, 
no  doubt,  an  accurate  record  of  the  Gospel  which 
he  preached  among  the  several  churches  which  he 
founded,  or  with  which  he  was  brought  in  contact. 
They  are  therefore,  so  far,  an  accurate  record  of  the 
form  which  Christianity  had  assumed  in  those 
various  churches  within  thirty  years  after  the  death 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  293 

of  Christ.  Whether  or  not  there  was  any  other 
form  prevalent  elsewhere,  or  what  that  form  was, 
we  are  unable  to  determine,  except  from  indications 
in  the  letters  themselves,  and  so  far  as  the  Gospels  or 
the  Acts  may  be  supposed  to  show  it.  The  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  moreover,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  whether 
the  book  was  written  with  that  design  or  not,  serves 
as  an  intermediate  and  connecting  link  between  the 
Epistles  and  the  Gospels.  Not  only  does  the  his- 
tory of  it  bridge  over  the  interval  of  time,  but  the 
book  itself  supplies  the  inevitable  transition.  The 
Acts  recorded  the  preaching  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
the  Epistles  imply  the  existence  of  various  churches 
which  had  so  accepted  Him,  and  give  us  a  more 
detailed  picture  of  the  effect  and  influence  of  so 
accepting  Him.  But  the  tone  of  thought  expressed 
in  the  Acts  is  virtually  far  nearer  to  the  Epistles 
than  it  is  to  the  Gospels  ;  and  the  history  is  a  clear 
witness  that  Jesus  was  proclaimed  as  the  Christ, 
and  that  there  was  no  faith  in  Him  where  He  was 
not  so  acknowledged.  It  can,  however,  scarcely  be 
doubted  that  the  writer  of  the  Acts  was  also  the 
writer  of  the  third  Gospel,  which  does  not  difi"er 
materially  in  its  exhibition  of  the  life  of  Jesus  from 
the  other  synoptics.  We  may  presume,  therefore, 
that  the  writer  was  not  himself  conscious  of  any 
material  or  substantial  divergence  between  the 
picture  of  Jesus  he  had  given  in  the  Gospel  and 
the  conception  of  Him  embodied  or  implied  in  the 


2  94  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

Acts.  And  if  lie  was,  as  we  may  reasonably  sup- 
pose, the  friend  and  companion  of  St,  Paul,  we  can 
hardly  imagine  that  he  was  conscious  of  any  real 
divergence  between  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  for 
example,  and  his  own  evangelical  narrative.  Not 
making  these  assumptions  absolutely,  we  may  at  all 
events  infer  that  the  early  traditions  on  which  they 
rest  are  so  far  in  favour  of  the  conclusions  we  have 
drawn  from  them  ;  and  may  tend  to  show  that  the 
differences  some  have  supposed  may,  after  all,  be 
more  imaginary  than  real. 
Features  And   Certainly,  the  Gospels,  the  Acts,   and  the 

to  the  Epistles,  have  at  any  rate  this  feature  in  com- 
Acts^Ynd  mon,  that  they  represent  Jesus  to  have  been  the 
pistes.  Qjjj.^g|-_  They  all  of  them  agree  that  the  Jesus 
whom  they  thus  represent  was  crucified,  dead 
and  buried  ;  they  are  unanimous  in  affirming  that 
He  rose  from  the  dead  the  third  day,  that  He  was 
several  times  seen  of  His  disciples  during  a  period 
(according  to  St.  Luke  or  the  writer  of  the  Acts) 
of  forty  days  after  His  death,  but  was  never  so 
seen  afterwards ;  they  one  and  all  declare  or  imply 
that  He  ascended  into  heaven  at  the  end  of  that 
time,  and  that  His  personal  return,  under  whatever 
circvmistances,  is  an  event  to  be  ever  anticipated  till 
it  comes.  Lastly,  they  all  agree  that  this  same 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  the  Messiah  promised  of 
old,  and  the  ultimate  judge  of  the  world.  The 
framework  of  fact,  then,  is  unquestionably  the  same 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  295 

in  all,  and  so  also  in  these  last  particulars  is  the 
framework  of  doctrine.  But  the  central,  funda- 
mental, and  essential  point  of  the  doctrine,  which  was 
based  upon  the  facts  and  presupposed  them,  which 
is  everywhere  implied,  and  never  omitted  or  lost 
sight  of,  is  the  declaration  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ. 

We  have,  then,  this  circumstance  to  deal  with, 
that  there  is  no  known  document  of  an  earlier  date 
than  the  earliest  of  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  being  the  Christ  is  found.  But 
it  is  found  stated  there  in  all  its  clearness  and 
integrity.  The  doctrine  was  at  that  time  fully 
developed,  the  belief  mature;  and  whatever  Christian 
literature  came  into  existence  afterwards,  whether 
Gospels,  Acts,  or  Epistles,  did  not  add  materially  to 
its   essential  features.     But  the  doctrine   or  belief  The  belief 

.      .  .  ^  .       (.  •!  1       '"  Christ 

already  existing  m  this  form  was  necessarily  the  the  pro- 
product  of  two  factors,  an  effect  produced  by  the  factors, 
combined  operation  of  two  causes — the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  and  the  life  of  Jesus.  Neither  of 
these  causes  alone  was  sufficient  to  produce  the 
result  which  as  a  matter  of  fact  we  know  was  pro- 
duced. The  life  of  Jesus  alone  could  not  have  given 
existence  to  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  or 
the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  The  study  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament alone  could  not  have  produced  either  of  them. 
They  were  in  no  sense  a  reproduction  of  the  ancient 
prophets.  They  were  new  and  original  creations, 
necessarily  presupposing  the  human  life  of  Jesus  £ind 


I  Hit  COU 

not  liave 
been  for^ 
seen. 


296  The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 

the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets.    Of  the  historic  reality 
of  either  of  these  factors  at  that  time — namely,  of  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  or  of  the  human 
life  of  Jesus — there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt. 
Id  But,  further,  it  could  not  Ly  human  ingenuity 

have  been  foreseen  that  what  we  may  call  the  fusion 
of  these  two  principles,  the  combined  operation  of 
these  two  factors,  would  have  produced  these  results 
any  more  than,  prior  to  experience,  it  could  have 
been  foreseen  that  the  combination  of  oxygen  and 
hydrogen  would  produce  water.  The  results,  however, 
as  we  know  them  for  a  certainty  from  the  writings 
of  St.  Pau],  and  as  we  see  them  in  those  writings 
themselves,  were  produced.  But,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
we  could  not  have  had  the  belief  that  Jesus  was  tbe 
Christ,  nor  the  results  which  followed  the  proclama- 
tion of  that  belief,  without  the  previous  existence 
and  combined  operation  of  the  two  causes  specified. 
Is  not  then  the  known  effect  an  evidence  of  the 
inherent  vitality  of  the  causes  producing  it,  and  a 
corroboration  of  the  soundness  of  the  principle 
which  governed  their  union  ?  Experience  j  ustified  the 
application  because  it  proved  the  truth  of  the  principle. 
For  it  cannot  be  too  carefully  noted  that  the 
effects  of  which  the  Pauline  Epistles  are  evidence 
were  not  produced  by  any  mere  abstract  admiration 
for  the  character  of  Jesus,  but  by  belief  in  Him  as 
the  Christ ;  and  it  is  this  which  guides  us  to  a  just 
appreciation  of  the  necessary  difference  between  the 


T/ie  Pauline  Epistles.  297 


Epistles  and  tlie  Gospels.  The  one  aim  at  giving 
us  the  presentation  of  a  life,  the  other  record  the 
influence  of  that  life.  It  is  natural  that  in  an  early 
and  unconscious  age  of  the  Church  the  record  of  the 
influence  of  the  life,  occurring  in  the  form  it  does, 
should  be  older  than  and  difl'erent  from  the  portrait 
of  the  life,  and  that  it  should  have  preceded  the 
portrait  of  the  life.  The  influence  registered  itself 
spontaneously  in  the  form  of  letters  ;  the  life  could 
only  be  recalled  in  the  form  of  history.  It  would 
be  the  colossal  framework  of  the  life,  and  not  its 
minute  detail,  to  which  the  influence  woidd  be  mainly 
due.  And  this  influence,  within  certain  broad  and 
comprehensive  limits,  would  be  the  same  everywhere. 
There  would  be  an  outward  diff'erence  of  expres- 
sion, but  an  internal  identity  of  operation,  wherever 
the  same  vital  principles  were  received,  just  as  the 
expression  of  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Thessalonians 
may  difl"er  from  that  of  the  Second  Epistle  to 
Timothy;  but  the  motive  spiritual  influence  implied 
and  at  work  in  both  is  the  same. 

Thus  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  the  record  of  The 

Epistles 

the  effect  or  influence  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  but  of  the  the  pro- 
life  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ ;  not  as  a  philosopher,  or  behef  in 
a  teacher  of  morality,  or  a  legislator  of  rules  of  life  ;  the  Christ. 
but  as  the  Christ  or  anointed  one  of  God,  who  was 
in  Himself  the  fountain  and  channel  of  all  spiritual 
life  ;  the  giver  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  the  one  mediator 
between  God  and  man,  who  was  in  Himself  the  bond 


The  Christ  of  Lfxt.  vii. 


of  union  between  man  and  God,  the  reconciler  of 
the  two  divided  and  antagonistic  natures,  because 
the  revelation  under  a  new  and  unprecedented 
aspect  of  the  character  of  God,  and  therefore  the  last 
and  fullest  exponent  of  the  will  of  God. 

All  this  if  Jesus  was  the  Christ  He  would  be,  for 
it  was  implied  and  signified  in  His  being  the  Christ, 
that  is  the  chosen  and  appointed  human  channel 
of  approach  to  God.  Consequently,  if  Jesus  were 
declared  to  be  the  Christ,  there  would  be  no  action 
of  His  life  which  would  not  be  fraught  with  the 
deepest  possible  meaning  for  man.  He  would  be 
the  representative  of  every  man  before  God  and  in 
his  approach  to  God.  His  life  would  be  man's 
perfect  life,  His  death  would  be  man's  death  as  a 
sinner.  His  resurrection  would  be  man's  resurrection 
in  righteousness  and  His  full  and  free  absolution 
and  release  from  sin,  His  ascension  would  be  man's 
spiritual  ascension  to  the  presence  of  God,  and  His 
continual  session  in  the  heavenly  places. 
The  That  He  should  be  so  recognised  and  accepted 

the  Holy  implied,  indeed,  and  involved  the  teaching  of  the 
imphed.  Holy  Spirit ;  but  to  this  agency  and  influence  con- 
tinual reference  is  made  in  the  Apostle's  writings,  as 
we  see  it  at  work  in  the  Acts  and  find  it  was  pro- 
mised in  the  Gospels.  It  was  in  demonstration  of 
the  spirit  and  of  power  that  his  speech  had  been  to 
the  Corinthians.^     It  was  by  the  hearing  of  faith 

1  Cor.  ii.  4. 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  299 

that  the  Gahxtians  had  received  the  Spirit ;  ^  it  was 
in  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  therefore  in  much  assurance 
or  certainty  of  conviction  that  the  Gospel  had  come 
to  the  Thessalonians.^  And  therefore  it  was  that 
the  life  of  Jesus  was  recognised  and  accepted  as 
the  typical  or  symbolic  life  of  man  when  He  was 
acknowledged  as  the  Christ.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
Gospels  dealt  with  the  life  of  Christ  not  in  its 
effects  but  in  its  historic  unfolding,  as  it  was  in 
itself  and  not  as  it  was  destined  to  influence  others, 
it  was  not  possible  that  they  should  present  the 
same  phenomena,  however  much  the  germ  of  that 
influence  may  have  been  embodied  in  the  words  of 
Jesus  as  it  was  of  necessity  contained  in  His  acts. 

Moreover,  the  Gospels  themselves  give  us  to  un- 
derstand that  mightier  results  than  any  as  yet  wit- 
nessed were  at  hand  ;  if  not,  why  should  the  command 
to  go  into  all  the  world  have  been  given  to  men  who 
as  yet  had  never  passed  the  confines  of  Palestine  ?^ 

While,  therefore,  the  manifest  difference  between 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles  is  itself  a  proof  that  these 
Epistles  could  not  have  been  originated  as  the 
natural  and  proper  sequel  to  the  facts  which  the 
Gospels  record,  the  Epistles  themselves  are  likewise 
evidence  to  the  prior  existence  of  certain  facts 
which  were  substantially  those  of  the  Gospels.  If 
Jesus   was    the  Christ,  as   the   Gospels   uniformly 

1  Gal.  iii.  2.  2   j  xj^ess.  i.  5. 

'  Cf.  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  13.      St.  Mark  xiv.  9,  etc. 


300  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 

declare  Him  to  liave  been,  then  the  Epistles  are 
the  record  and  abiding  evidence  of  certain  residts, 
not  indeed  such  as  we  might  beforehand  have  ex- 
pected the  Gospels  to  produce,  but  such  as  could 
not  have  been  produced  but  for  the  reality  of  the 
facts  they  record,  and  the  belief  they  are  written  to 
proclaim,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 

The  The  Pauline  Epistles,  then,  are  evidence,  first,  of 

certain  facts,  such  as  the  life  and  death  of  Jesus 
Christ,  which,  as  long  as  these  writings  last,  cannot 

andlhe'  ^c  rcsolvcd  iuto  myth  or  fiction ;  and,  secondly, 
they  are  evidence  of  the  very  widespread  accept- 
ance of  a  particular  belief,  and  of  the  results  which 


Pauline 
Epistle: 
prove 
the  life 


effects 
which 
followed 
His  accept 

ciuir  ^"^  followed  its  acceptance.  This  was  the  conviction 
or  belief  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  The  Epistles, 
moreover,  are  evidence,  conclusive  and  undeniable, 
of  the  acceptance  of  this  belief,  which  was  based 
upon  facts,  within  a  short  space  of  time  after  the 
occurrence  of  the  facts  upon  which  it  was  based. 
It  is  certain  also  that  the  widespread  acceptance  of 
this  belief,  and  the  rapid  growth  of  the  religion  in- 
volving it,  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  the  assump- 
tion tluit  it  was  due  solely  to  the  influence  of  the 
life  and  teaching  of  Jesus,  because,  if  so,  it  is  pre- 
sumable that  there  would  not  have  been  the  marked 
diff"erence  there  is  between  tlie  only  records  we 
possess  of  that  life  and  teaching,  and  the  eff"ects  of 
its  influence  as  we  see  them  in  the  Epistles.  Con- 
sequently, in  order  to  account  for  its   acceptance, 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  301 

we  must  tlirow  in  the  operation  of  another  element, 
without  which  it  is  not  possible  that  Jesus  should 
have  been  the  Christ,  or  that  the  declaration  that 
He  was  should  have  met  with  any  widespread 
acceptance,  and  this  element  is  the  bestowal  of 
new  life  which  is  implied  in  His  resurrection  and 
in  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  followed  it. 

Not  only  is  the  statement  of  the  resurrection  as 
a  fiict  implied  in  every  one  of  the  Epistles,  but  the 
evidence  of  its  effect  and  operation  as  a  new  prin- 
ciple of  life  is  present  and  conspicuous  everyAvhere.  The 
And  it  is  the  presence  of  this  element  which  at  between 
once  accounts  for  and  explains  not  only  the  exist-  aid  the 
ence  of  the  Epistles  themselves,  but  also  the  fact  of  ""'^^ "' 
the  marked  difference  which  exists  between  them 
and  the  Gospels.  The  Gospels  are  ostensibly  the 
records  of  certain  facts  and  teaching,  and  of  certain 
facts  and  teaching  which  ostensibly  lead  on  and  up 
to  another  great  and  transcendent  fact  which  is 
supposed  to  rest  upon  them,  while  the  effect  that 
the  whole  together  are  intended  to  produce  is  the 
conviction  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ.  The  Epistles, 
on  the  other  hand,  are  the  expression  of  the  results 
which  followed  this  conviction.  The  Gospels  show 
us  how  Jesus  claimed  to  be  and  was  the  giver  of 
new  life ;  the  Epistles  show  us  the  oj)eration  and 
reality  of  that  new  life  He  gave.  The  Gospels, 
therefore,  one  and  all,  stop  short  exactly  there 
where    the   Epistles   begin.      The   Gospels    declare 


\02 


The  Christ  of  lect.  vii. 


and  disclose  to  us  a  great  fact ;  the  Epistles  show 
us  the  operation  and  consequence  of  that  fact.  It 
is  impossible  that  the  outward  aspect  of  the  two 
should  be  identical.  The  teaching  of  Jesus,  mar- 
vellous and  novel  as  it  was,  as  a  motive  power  was 
and  could  be  nothing  in  comparison  of  His  resur- 
rection, if  that  resurrection  was  a  fact.  The  Epistles 
themselves,  regarded  as  mere  literary  productions, 
are  evidence  that  it  was  a  fact.  For  they  could 
not  have  been  produced  at  the  time  and  under  the 
circumstances  they  were  produced,  and  by  the  man 
who  produced  them,  and  witli  the  essential  features 
that  characterise  them,  unless  it  had  been  a  fact. 
They  are  not  merely  the  transcript  of  certain  per- 
sonal opinions,  but  evidence  to  the  reality  of  a  fact 
producing  them.  For,  otherwise,  we  must  admit 
that  the  phenomena  presented  by  the  Pauline 
Epistles,  and  by  the  early  Christian  churches  to 
which  they  were  sent,  were  the  product  of  decep- 
tion and  delusion,  which  is  verily  absurd. 
They  are  Althouffh,  thcu,  it  is  truc  that  the  Gospels  have 

not  antago-  o    ^  '  j. 

nistic.  drawn  the  portrait  of  the  human  life  of  Christ, 
while  the  Epistles  have  presented  us  with  the  con- 
trast of  internal  conception,  and  although  the  record 
of  the  latter  is  undoubtedly  earlier  in  point  of  time, 
as  it  naturally  would  be,  there  is  no  essential  an- 
tagonism or  difference  between  them.  If  we  know 
anything  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  one  prominent 
and  inseparable  feature  of  it  must  have  been  that 


lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  303 

He  was  Himself  the  Christ,  for  otherwise  the  con- 
tinual proclamation  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  as 
from  the  first  it  was  proclaimed,  and  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  twelve  and  of  the  seventy  to  proclaim 
it,  would  have  been  unmeaning. 

But  it  is  precisely  this  truth  which  is  the  kernel 
of  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  He  has  himself  accepted 
Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and  his  writings  are  the  monu- 
ment of  his  acceptance  and  the  record  of  all  that  it 
implied.  To  have  such  a  record  as  this  so  early  in 
point  of  time  is  a  proof  that  the  leaven  had  begun 
to  work,  while  it  is  itself  an  indication  of  the 
manner  in  which  it  worked.  But  just  as  the 
leaven  is  distinct  from  the  meal  in  which  it  works, 
and  from  the  effect  produced  by  its  mode  of  work- 
ing, so  also  necessarily  is  the  record  of  the  human 
life  of  Christ  distinct  and  different  from  the  picture 
of  that  new  life  to  wdiicli  it  had  given  the  impulse. 

Nor  is  it  otherwise  than  natural  that  traces  of 
the  existence  and  operation  of  this  new  life,  while 
carrying  us  back  inevitably  to  a  cause  producing  it, 
should  have  come  into  existence  as  they  did  in  the 
letters  of  St.  Paul,  before,  possibly,  any  detailed 
record  of  the  life  of  Christ  had  been  committed  to 
writing.^     This,  indeed,  it  may  not  be  given  us  to 

^  This  would  natiu'ully  be  the  case  in  a  society  as  yet  liardly 
conscious  of  its  own  existence  ;  and  the  fact  that  it  historically  was 
so  is  no  slight  indication  of  the  reality  and  genuineness  of  the 
causes   at    work.     There    could   hardly  be   a  greater   proof  of  the 


304  The  CJu'ist  of  lect.  vii. 

decide,  but  all  tliat  we  are  concerned  to  show  is 
tliat  tlie  unquestionable  testimony  of  St.  Paul's 
Epistles,  assuming  as  tbey  do  the  framework  of 
the  Gospel  narrative  and  the  essence  of  the  Gospel 
teaching,  is  in  no  way  contradicted,  and  is  not 
necessarily  modified  by  the  possibly  subsequent 
attempts  to  present  in  detail  a  record  of  the  human 
life  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  consistency 
of  the  various  extant  narratives  among  themselves 
is  altogether  a  different  matter,  upon  which  we 
need  not  now  touch ;  but  it  may  be  safely  affirmed 
that  the  utmost  that  can  be  made  of  their  alleged 
contradictions  and  inconsistencies  is  as  nothing- 
compared  with  the  weight  and  significance  of  their 
combined  testimony,  confirmed  and  corroborated  as 
it  is  by  the  wholly  independent  and  necessarily 
unconscious  witness  of  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  to 
the  main  central  and  essential  facts  of  the  history. 
Facts  In  the  face,  then,  of  the  various  considerations 

Epistles  which  we  have  had  in  review  before  us,  it  appears 
pose.  that  we  cannot  set  aside  the  evidence  afforded  l^y 
the  Pauline  writings  to  the  nature  and  origin  of  the 
earliest  Christian  belief,  and  of  the  first  Christian 
society.  However  numerous  and  interesting  the 
questions  that  may  arise  on  these  matters  which  we 

historic  origin  of  Christianity  than  the  known  existence  of  writings 
like  the  Pauline  Epistles  within  a  quarter  of  a  century  after  that 
event  which  was  alike  the  foundation  of  them  and  of  the  religion 
from  which  they  sprang — the  death  of  Christ. 


lect.  VII.  The  Panlhie  Epistles.  305 

cannot  answer,  they  are  really  inconsiderable  when 
compared  with  the  amount  of  positive  and  satisfac- 
tory evidence  that  is  fairly  within  our  reach.  We 
see  that  the  same  foundation  of  belief  is  virtually 
implied  in  all  the  Apostle's  letters, — and  that  this  is 
a  foundation  of  fact.  He  could  not  have  appealed 
to  the  Colossians,  as  he  did,  to  set  their  affections 
on  things  above,  and  not  on  things  on  the  earth, 
because  they  were  dead,  and  their  life  was  hid  with 
Christ  in  God,  unless  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
of  Jesus  had  been  proclaimed  at  Colossas,  unless 
Jesus  had  been  accepted  as  the  Christ  accord- 
ingly, and  unless  the  acceptance  of  that  truth  had 
been  followed,  in  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  by  the 
answer  of  their  own  conscience  to  it  in  the  personal 
experience  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  They 
were  themselves  conscious  and  independent  wit- 
nesses to  the  fact  that  the  teaching  of  the  Apostle 
had  wrought  in  them,  as  truth  alone  could  work. 
They  knew  that,  as  they  were  not  the  victims  of 
delusion  on  the  part  of  the  Apostle,  so  they  were 
not  acting  in  collusion  with  him,  but  were  free,  re- 
sponsible, and  independent  witnesses  to  the  truth 
which  he  proclaimed,  as  well  as  to  the  tendency  of 
that  truth  to  act  upon  their  lives.  This,  which  is 
alike  the  grand  result  of  one  and  all  his  letters,  and 
a  result  about  which  we  may  be  quite  sure,  is  at 
once  superior  to  and  independent  of  a  multitude  of 

X 


The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 


minor  and  subordinate  questions  about  which  we 
must  for  ever  be  content  to  remain  in  ignorance. 
The  con-  There  are  then,  from  what  has  been  said,  certain 

which  broad  conclusions  which  we  may  safely  draw.  The 
body  of  the  New  Testament  writings,  but  peculiarly 
the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  both  from  their  manifest 
character  and  their  known  origin,  afford  irresistible 
and  conclusive  evidence  to  the  operation  of  a  new^ 
principle  in  the  world  to  which  there  is  no  parallel 
in  secular  literature.  This  principle  openly  declared 
itself  as  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  to  its 
novelty  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  the  only  instance 
of  a  similar  agency  at  work,  and  this  is  but  a  partial 
parallel,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament.  As  to  its  tendency,  also,  there  can  be 
no  doubt,  unless  we  are  prepared  to  assert  that  the 
moral  tendency  of  the  Pauline  writings  is  perni- 
cious, and  the  principles  inculcated  bad.  As  to  its 
origin,  therefore,  there  can  alone  be  any  doubt, 
whether  it  was  righteous  and  true,  or  whether  it 
was  virtually  unrighteous  because  inherently  and 
radically  false.  And  this  is  practically  determined 
by  the  former  consideration,  for  hy  their  fruits  ye 
shall  know  them. 

But  further,  this  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
was  continually  appealed  to  and  claimed  by  the  first 
preachers  of  the  Gospel,  and  implied  and  evidenced 
in  the  early  Christian  correspondence  of  St.  Paul, 
was  over  promised  and  bestowed  in  confirmation  of 


Lect.  VII.  The  Pauline  Epistles.  307 

the   truth   which  was    embraced  when    Jesus   was 
ackuowledged  as  the  Christ.     As  a  matter  of  fact 
there  is  no  evidence  of  a  principle  at  work  analogous 
to  that  of  which  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament, 
regarded  merely  as  writings,  are  the  abiding  monu- 
ment, outside  the  limits  of  the  early  Christian  society. 
This  is  simply  a  question  of  literature,  and  not  at 
all  an  assertion  of  dogma.      These  are  written  that 
ye  might  believe,  may  fairly  and  conclusively  be  taken 
as  the  motto  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures.    We  ( 
do  not  assume  inspiration   in  order  to  exalt  those  \ 
Scriptures ;  but  we  take  those  Scriptures  as  they   \ 
are,  and  deduce  from  their  existence  and  their  highly 
exceptional  phenomena,  the  necessary  postulate  of  a 
special  and  unique  inspiration.    As  a  matter  of  fact 
the  confession  of  the  name  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  was 
followed  by  results  new  and  unparalleled   in   the 
history  of  the  world.     If  the  Grospels  and  the  Acts 
were  lost  to  us,  the  measure  of  those  results  would 
be  preserved  imperishably  in  the  known  and  un- 
doubted Epistles  of  St.  Paul.     As  they  could  not 
have  been  written  but  for  the  conviction  and  con- 
fession that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  so  neither  are  the 
phenomena  they  present  and  imply  to  be  accounted 
for  on  the  supposition  that  Jesus  was  not  the  Christ : 
on  the   supposition,   that   is,  either  that  the  facts 
which  proved  Him  to  be  the  Christ  were  fallacious 
and  unreal,  or  that  there  was  something  essentially 
hollow  and  unsound  in  the  conception  of  that  office, 


3o8  The  Christ  of  Lect.  vii. 

and  those  hopes  which  He  was  declared  to  have  ful- 
filled. For  Jesus  was  proclaimed  as  the  Christ,  not 
to  the  Jews  only,  but  to  the  Gentiles  also.  Jesus 
was  accepted  as  the  Christ,  not  by  the  Jews  only 
who  believed,  but  by  the  Gentiles  also. 
The  There  is  therefore,  in  the  Christ-office  of  Jesus, 

character  that  whicli  is  alike  independent  of  nationality  and 
peinTanent.  of  time.  We,  in  the  present  day,  cannot  afford  to 
surrender  the  claim  advanced  for  Jesus  to  be  the 
Christ,  for,  in  so  doing,  we  shall  renounce  our  title 
to  the  name  of  Christian.  It  was  to  the  validity  of 
this  claim,  no  less  than  to  the  historic  reality  of  the 
person  advancing  and  fulfilling  it,  that  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  promised  and  bestowed  as  an 
attesting  witness.  His  testimony  would  have  been 
invalidated,  and  God,  in  the  language  of  St.  John, 
have  been  made  a  liar,  had  there  been  any  flaw  in 
the  cardinal  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  or  in  the 
reality  of  that  office  which  He  claimed  to  fill. 

And  thus,  lastly,  the  fact  of  Jesus  being  the 
Christ,  which  is  witnessed  to  by  the  historic  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  alone  will  enable  us  ade- 
quately and  satisfactorily  to  account  for  the  essential 
and  characteristic  features  of  the  earliest  Christian 
literature,  as  we  find  them  in  the  writings  of  St. 
The  Paul,  becomes  the  effectual  and  conclusive  seal  of 

seal  of 

the  Old      the  substantial  and  essential  truth  of  the  Old  Testa- 

Sciiptures.  mcut    Scripturcs  as    a  whole.     There  was  a  hope 

embodied  in  those  Scriptures,  which  was  not  of  man's 


lect.  VII.  TJie  Pauline  Epistles.  309 

discovery  or  conception,  which  was  Divinely-in- 
spired, and  based  on  a  promise  which  was  God- 
given.  It  was  a  hope  which  grew  brighter  and 
brighter  as  the  time  of  its  fulfihnent  drew  near.  It 
was  a  hope  of  which  we  can  clearly  trace  the  de- 
velopment, and  yet  a  hope  to  which,  neither  in  its 
origin  nor  in  its  development,  can  we  assign  a  sufh- 
cient  natural  cause.  It  has  never  been  given  to  any 
nation  but  one  to  indulge  instinctively  an  irrepres- 
sible hope  like  that  of  the  Messiah,  whicli  the  pro- 
gress of  the  ages  has  fulfilled.  It  has  never  been 
given  to  any  literature  but  one  to  express  this  hope 
in  a  thousand  forms,  unconsciously  to  conceive,  to 
nurture,  and  to  develop  it,  in  manifold  parts  and  in 
divers  manners,  till  it  became  a  substantial  and  con- 
sistent whole,  and  to  leave  this  expression  for  centu- 
ries as  an  heirloom  to  mankind,  the  significance  and 
preciousness  of  which  time  alone  would  declare  and 
history  conclusively  reveal.  But  to  this  nation  and 
to  this  literature  it  was  given.  The  national  mind 
of  Israel  was  pregnant  with  a  mighty  thought,  a 
thought  which  we  cannot  fail  to  detect  from  the 
earliest  to  the  latest  monuments  of  its  literature. 
As  it  was  impossible  that  this  thought  should  be 
self-originated,  we  can  only  recognise  it  as  the  fruit 
of  the  nation's  exceptional  nearness  and  dearness  to 
God,  the  ofl!"spring  of  God's  covenant  and  union  with 
the  nation ;  and  when  the  life  of  Jesus  could  be 
looked  back  upon  and  regarded  as  a  whole,  then  it 


310        The  Christ  of  tJie  Paitlinc  Episllcs.    lkct.  vii. 

was  fouDcl,  and  not  before,  that  that  life  was  the 
fullest  and  the  complete  realisation  of  the  mighty 
thought.  When  He  was  recognised  as  the  man-child 
whom  Zion  travailed  to  bring  forth,  the  fulness  of 
the  hope  which,  for  long  ages,  patriarchs,  prophets, 
and  poets  had  cherished,  and  the  law^  itself  had  fore- 
shadowed and  symbolised, — when  He  was  accepted 
as  the  Christ  and  the  Prophet  that  should  come  into 
the  w^orld,  then  it  was  seen  that  the  hope  of  the 
fathers  was  not  a  dream,  and  that  He  who  had 
spoken  l)y  the  prophets  was  none  other  than  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  truth. 


LECTURE   VIII. 


THE  CHRIST  OF  THE  OTHER  BOOKS. 


The  Bible  is  not  such  a  book  as  man  would  have  made,  if  he  could  ; 
or  could  have  made,  if  he  would. — Henry  Rogers. 


LECTURE    VIII. 

/  Jesus  have  sent  mine  angel  to  testify  unto  you  these  things  in  the 
Churches.  I  am  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David,  and  the 
bright  and  morning  star. — Rev.  xxii.  16. 

That  Avliicli  we  know  as  the  doctrine  or  conception  The  Christ 

conception 

of  the  Clirist  is  only  to  be  gathered  from  the  New  the  net 
Testament  as  a  whole.  The  writings  which  by  acci-  the  New 
dent  or  design  are  comprised  in  that  collection  pre- 
sent us  with  a  certain  idea  which  is  completely 
contained  in  them,  and  which  cannot  be  added  to  by 
anything  outside  of  them  from  the  rest  of  Christian 
literature.  This  is,  first,  the  conception  of  the  human 
life  of  Jesus  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and 
secondly,  the  idea  that  He  was  the  Christ  or  Messiah 
promised  of  old,  which  is  common  to  every  book  of 
the  New  Testament,  the  early  progress  of  which  we 
read  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  various 
expressions  of  which  we  find  in  the  several  Epistles 
and  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation. 

The  substantive  result  of  this  aggregate  of 
writings  is  the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the  Christ 
which  is  presented  to  us  under  various  aspects  and 
by  various  minds.  It  is  quite  open  to  us,  then,  to 
regard  this  conception  or  idea,  contained  as  it  is  in 


314  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

the  New  Testament,  as  a  positive  fact  of  literature 
produced  a23proximately  within  the  first  century  of 
our  era. 
Original  And  it  is  to  be  observed  that  there  is  no  other 

and 

unique.  literary  phenomenon  answering  to  this  fact  since  its 
appearance  eighteen  centuries  ago.  Neither  was 
there  any  strict  parallel  to  it  before  its  appearance. 
For,  wonderful  as  the  phenomena  presented  by  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  really  are,  and  sup- 
plying as  they  do  the  foundation  upon  which  those 
of  the  New  Testament  are  based,  they  nevertheless 
ofler  no  true  parallel  to  them. 

For  the  doctrine  or  conception  of  the  Christ  as 
we  have  it,  which  is  the  essential  and  necessary  basis 
of  the  religion  which  we  call  Christianity,  is  un- 
questionably the  product  of  a  human  life.  In  what- 
ever aspect  we  regard  the  Gospels,  every  one  of  them 

Pointing  to  leads  us  up  to  a  human  life  as  the  ultimate  reason 

a  human 

life.  of  its  existence.     Even  if  the  narrative  is  overlaid 

with  unhistoric  details,  it  is  impossible  but  that  there 
must  be  an  historic  foundation  for  the  main  events 
of  it.  And  the  fourfold  testimony  of  the  existing 
Gospels  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  corroborative 
of  this  conclusion.  The  history  of  the  Acts,  trust- 
worthy as  it  undoubtedly  is  in  its  general  tenor,  is 
likewise  impossible  without  supposing  the  previous 
existence  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  And  when  we  come 
to  the  Pauline  Epistles,  written  as  some  of  them 
probably  were  before  any  of  the  other  books,  and 


lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  315 

leading  us  up,  as  we  have  seen  they  do,  to  a  mucli 
earlier  period  in  the  life  of  the  writer,  who  must 
himself  have  been  contemporary  with  the  Person 
whom  he  first  persecuted  and  afterwards  preached, 
it  is  abundantly  evident  that  the  human  life  of  that 
Person  is  not  only  the  corner-stone  of  every  epistle 
that  he  wrote,  but  the  indispensable  foundation  of 
his  after  history,  without  which  almost  all  that  we 
know  of  him  remains  inexplicable. 

So  far  then  as  the  Christ  idea  or  the  doctrine  of 
the  Christ  is  connected  with  the  person  of  Jesus,  the 
reality  of  His  human  life  is  established  beyond  a 
doubt,  for  the  existing  phenomena  of  the  literature, 
as  we  have  it,  would  be  impossible  otherwise. 

It  remains  then  to  notice  other  aspects  of  the  other 
same  idea  presented  to  us  in  the   New  Testament,  oHhe^ 
and  to  inquire  what  their  relation  is  to  those  ^yg  ^^'"*^  •' ^^• 
have    already   considered.       These   are   principally 
three  ;  those,  namely,  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  John,  and  the  Revelation. 
The  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  and  the  Epistle  of  St.  Jude 
do  not  present  the  same  marked  contrast  to  the  other 
writings   that   these   do ;    and  the  Epistle  to    th(j 
Hebrews   is  mainly  the  development  of  one  idea, 
that,  namely,  of  the  priesthood  of  Jesus  Christ,  which, 
though  not  foreign  to  some  of  the  other  writers,  is 
worthy  of  separate  and  independent  consideration, 
but  not  for  our  present  object. 

The  Epistle  of  St.  James  naturally  comes  first,  be- 


3i6  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

The         cause  of  its  supposed  antagonism  to  the  writings  of  St. 

sfjamel  P^ul,  to  wliicli  oui*  attention  was  last  directed.  The 
writer  calls  himself  a  servant  of  God  and  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,^  thereby  implying  not  only  that  Jesus 
was  the  Christ,  but  that  in  some  way  He  was  unex- 
ceptionally  near  to  God.  He  speaks  afterwards  of  the 
faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Lord  of  glory,^ 
which  it  seems  hardly  possible  to  understand  unless 
He  had  in  some  way  been  glorified.  And  His  resurrec- 
tion and  ascension  to  glory  after  His  death  of  shame 
are  virtually  implied  when  he  speaks  of  the  coming 
of  the  Lord.^  Moreover,  the  poor  who  are  rich  in 
faith,  the  faith  of  our  Lo7'd  Jesus  Christ,  and  heirs 
of  the  kingdom  which  God  hath  promised  to  them 
that  love  Him,  are  said  to  be  the  chosen  of  God ;  ^ 
which  recalls  the  preaching  of  Jesus,  B.epent  ye  and 
believe  the  Gospel;^  the  Gospel  of  the  kingdom;^  many 
he  called  hut  few  chosen,'^  and  the  like.  His  reference 
to  the  engrafted  word,  which  is  to  be  received  with 
meekness,  and  is  able  to  save  the  soul,^  brings  back 
to  us  very  forcibly  the  parable  of  the  sower,  as  also 
does  the  fruit  of  righteousness,  which  is  sown  in 
peace  of  them  that  make  peace. ^  The  earnest  ex- 
hortation to  be  doers  of  the  word,  and  7iot  hearers 
o}dy,^^^  reminds  us  of  the  conclusion  of  the  sermon  on 
the  mount;  and  the  injunction  to  ask  in  faith,  nothing 


^  St.  James  i 

.  1. 

-  ii.  1.               •'  V.  8. 

*  ii.  5. 

'  St.  Mark  i, 

,  15. 

'  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  14. 

7    XX.   1( 

8  St.  James  i 

[.  21. 

^  iii.  18. 

10  I  22. 

lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  31 7 

wavering^  recalls  the  promise  of  the  Lord,  Ask,  and 
it  shall  he  given  you?  Such  admonitions  as,  Let 
'patience  have  her  perfect  work,  that  ye  may  he  per- 
fect,^ and  Take,  my  hrethren,  the  prophets  ivho  have 
spoken  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  for  an  example  of 
suffering  affl-iction  and  of  patience,^  so  frequently 
repeated  as  they  are,  follow  on  wonderfully  from 
Rejoice  and  he  exceeding  glad,  for  so  persecuted  they 
the  prophets  which  tvere  hefore  you,^  and  he  ye 
therefore  perfect.^  The  ivorthy  name  hy  which  ye 
are  called ''  can  hardly  be  other  than  the  name  of 
Christ  in  baptism. 

And  though  there  is  no  direct  allusion  to  the 
sufferings  of  Christ,  yet  as  a  time  of  persecution  and 
suffering  is  implied,  and  patience  is  continually  en- 
joined, we  must  presuppose  His  death  who  had  given 
so  conspicuous  an  example  of  patience  and  was  now 
exalted  to  glory  :  while,  Behold  ive  count  them 
happy  which  endure  ^  is  borrowed  from  the  words 
of  Jesus,  Blessed  are  they  ivhich  are  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,^  and  He  that  endureth  unto  the  end,  the 
same  shall  he  saved, ^^  as  also  is,  Blessed  is  the  man 
that  endu7'eth  temptation,  for  when  he  is  tried  he 
shall  receive  the  croiun  of  life  luJiich  the  Lord  hath 
promised  to  them  that  love  himM 


1  St.  James  i.  G.      ^  St.  Matt.  vii.  7.     ^  St.  James  i 

[.  4.      '  V.  10. 

5  St.  Matt.  V.  12.                       ^  V.  48.             '    St. 

James  ii.  7. 

"  V.  11.     "  St.  Matt.  V.  10.     '"  xxiv.  13.      ''  St. 

James  i.  1 2. 

3 1 8  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

In  fact  tliere  is  probably  no  document  of  the 
New  Testament  that  has  so  many  points  of  contact 
with  the  synoptical  Gospels  as  the  Epistle  of 
St.  James  ;  clearly  showing  that,  whatever  was  his 
conception  of  the  Christ,  the  person  in  whom  he  so 
believed  was  none  other  than  the  Jesus  whose 
history  they  record.  We  have  then  as  a  common 
framework  in  this  Epistle,  the  Fatherhood  of  God,^ 
the  exaltation  of  Jesus  who  is  acknowledged  as  the 
Christ,^  His  return  to  judgment,^  and  manifold 
allusions  to  His  recorded  teaching.^  The  concep- 
tion embodied  in  it  is  that  rather  of  a  glorified  than 
a  suffering  Christ,  and  yet  the  aspect  of  Christian 
life  which  is  most  prominent  is  that  of  fellowship 
with  His  sufferings  in  unceasing  patience,  and 
imitation  of  His  example  in  the  consistency  of 
righteous  conversation.  The  clear  and  emphatic 
recognition  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  is  sufficient,  at  all 
events,  to  add  this  Epistle  to  the  number  of  those 
early  writings  which  the  doctrine  and  religion  of 
the  Christ  originated,  however  various  its  testimony 
may  be. 

But  there  are  certain  points  in  which  it  approxi- 
mates with  remarkable  closeness  to  the  Pauline 
teaching,  notwithstanding  its  apparent  difference. 
For  example,  when  the  writer  says,  Of  his  own  will 
begat  he  us  with  the  ivord  of  truth,  that  ive  should 

^  St.  JaiiK's  i.  17,  27.  '  ii.  1.  ^  v.  8. 

^   V.  12  ;  St.  Matt.  v.  .34,  etc. 


Lect.  viiT.  The  Other  Books.  319 

he  a  hind  of  Jlrstfruits  of  his  creatures,^  he  virtu- 
ally implies  that  the  Gospel  had  acted  with  a 
reojeneratinf?  influence  on  himself  and  his  converts, 
as  the  effect  of  it  is  so  frequently  described  by 
St.  Paul.  It  had  come  with  a  new  power,  and  had 
given  them  new  life,  even  as  the  Apostle  of  the 
Gentiles  had  said,  You  hath  he  quickened,  who  were 
dead  in  trespasses  and  sins?  The  spiritual  opera- 
tion which  is  thus  implied  is  a  clear  proof  that  to 
the  minds  of  both  writers  the  same  effect  was 
present.  The  word  or  message  of  Jesus  Christ, 
which  was  the  word  of  truth,  was  no  dead  formal 
precept  of  morality,  or  repetition  of  a  mere  histori- 
cal statement,  but  a  living  energetic  principle 
capable  of  begetting  and  imparting  life.  A  con- 
fession like  this  is  invniuable  as  coming  from 
St.  James,  because  the  common -sense  ethical 
character  of  his  Epistle  is  apt  to  blind  us  to  the 
necessary  foundation  of  spiritual  life  which  is  pre- 
supposed in  it.  And  this  spiritual  life  was  as  much 
the  gift  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  effect  of  belief  in 
His  word,  to  him,  as  it  was  to  St.  Paul. 

This  assertion  on  his  part  is  evidence,  therefore, 
not  only  of  a  common  basis  of  facts  which  each 
writer  assumed,  but  of  a  common  method  of  opera- 
tion implied  as  being  inherent  in  the  facts.  The 
belief  that  Jesus  risen  and  glorified  was  the  Christ, 
is  acknowledged    by   St.   James  to  have    had  the 

'  St.  Jivmes  i.  18.  '  Ei-lics.  li.   I. 


320  The  CJirist  of  lect.  viii. 

same  quickening  and  reviving  power  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  God,  which  is  affirmed  by  the  great 
Apostle  of  the  Divine  election,  who  says  that  tlie 
gift  of  God  is  eternal  life  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord,  luho  ivas  delivered  for  our  offences  and  raised 
again  for  our  justification ;  ^  that  it  is  not  of  him 
that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  hut  of  God 
that  showeth  mercy. ^ 

Nor  is  there  the  same  hopeless  divergence  be- 
tween these  two  writers  on  the  question  as  to  how 
man  can  be  just  before  God,  which  is  frequently 
supposed,  and  as  at  first  sight  appears.  It  is  impos- 
sible to  resist  the  cogency  of  the  trenchant  practical 
arguments  of  St.  James  on  the  worthlessness  of 
faith  which  has  no  influence  on  works.  They  are 
obviously  conclusive.  Whatever  may  have  been 
their  historic  relation  to  the  teaching  of  St.  Paul, 
there  can  be  no  question  that  they  form  a  whole- 
some ethical  complement  to  that  teaching  ;  one, 
however,  which  is  virtually  implied  in  every  Epistle 
of  St.  Paul  himself.  But  just  as  the  practical  con- 
clusions of  St.  James  are  implied  and  expressed  in 
St.  Paul,  so  likewise  are  the  principles  of  St.  Paul 
implied  and  virtually  expressed  in  St.  James.  For 
what  is  the  foundation  principle  of  St.  Paul,  but 
that  all  the  world  must  become  guilty  before  God  if 
judged  according  to  the  strict  letter  of  the  Law  ?  ^ 
Therefore    it  is    that  God    hath  set  forth  in  the 

1  Rom.  vi.  23  ;  iv.  25,  ^  jx.  16.  ^  iii.  19,  20. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  321 

Gospel  a  more  excellent  way  whereby  the  guilty 
may  be  accounted  righteous  in  Jesus  Christ/  This 
is  the  very  word  of  truth  which  quickens  and  saves 
the  soul.  But  since,  as  we  have  seen,  this  latter 
truth  has  already  been  stated  by  St.  James,  so  also 
is  the  previous  foundation  principle  established  by 
him.  For  when  he  says,  W}iosoeveT  shall  keep  the 
whole  laiu,  and  yet  offend  in  one  point,  he  is  guilty 
of  all,^  what  does  he  do  virtually,  but  bring  in 
the  whole  world  guilty  before  God,  as  St.  Paul  has 
already  done  ?  Judged  by  the  strict  letter  of  the 
Law,  there  is  no  man  living  who  sinneth  not.  This 
was  alike  the  teaching  of  Solomon  ^  and  of  David/ 
and  consequently  St.  James  can  neither  have  been 
ignorant  of  nor  have  run  counter  to  it ;  but  when 
he  asserts  this  foundation  principle  in  the  way  he 
does,  we  are  able  to  see  precisely  where  the  opera- 
tion of  that  word  of  truth  comes  in,  which  being 
received  with  meekness  and  engrafted  in  the  heart 
is  able  to  save  the  soul. 

Surely,  therefore,  we  may  fairly  say  that 
St.  Paul  and  St.  James  represent  two  aspects  of 
Christian  truth,  but  only  two  aspects  of  the  same 
Christian  truth.  The  same  Divine  light  fell  upon 
minds  of  different  hue  and  colour,  and  the  effect 
produced  differed  accordingly;  but  as  we  can  detect 
evidence  of  the  same  operation  in  both,  so  likewise 

1  Rom.  iii.  21.  ^  St.  James  ii.  10. 

^  1  Kings  viii.  46.  *  Ps.  cxliii.  2. 

Y 


322  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

have  we  conclusive  proof  tliat  the  origin   of  the 
lio;ht  was  the  same  to  both,  for  it  streamed  forth 
from  the  glorified  Jesus  who  was  by  both  acknow- 
ledged as  the  Christ,  the  chosen  of  God. 
The  We  pass  on  next  to  the  Epistles  of  St.  John, 

s^john"  which  we  treat  as  documents  falling  perhaps  within 
the  first  century,  and  valuable  for  our  23urpose  for 
the  evidence  only  which  they  furnish  as  to  the 
writer's  conception  of  the  doctrine  and  religion  of 
the  Christ.  In  the  opening  of  the  First  Epistle  we 
have  the  emphatic  assertion  that  the  writer  was  an 
eyewitness  of  the  human  life  which  had  been 
manifested  and  had  come  forth  from  the  Father. 
This  was  the  human  life  of  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.^ 
Nor  is  there  any  doubt  as  to  the  identity  of  this 
person  with  the  historic  Jesus  who  lived  and  died, 
because  the  writer  says  that  tlie  hlood  of  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son  cleanseth  us  from  all  si7i}  Here  is 
the  recognition  of  that  idea  of  the  high  priesthood 
of  Jesus  Christ  which  is  the  main  subject  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  cleansing  is  a  spiritual 
cleansing,  but  it  is  the  inward  analogue  of  the 
ceremonial  purification  and  atonement  for  sin 
typified  under  the  Law.  As  the  fact  of  our  Lord's 
death  is  not  expressely  alluded  to  in  the  Epistle  of 
St.  James,  so  neither  is  the  fact  of  His  resurrection 
in  the  Epistles  of  St.  John,  but  it  is  continually 
implied.      For  He   is  recognised  as  the  advocate 

1  John  i.  1-3.  "  i.  7. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  323 

with  the  Father,  and  as  being  Himself  the  source 
of  life,  which  involves  therefore  His  resurrection 
and  ascension.  In  the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  the 
writer's  mind  was  chiefly  filled  with  the  glorified 
condition  of  Jesus,  and  the  necessity  of  a  life  con- 
formable to  it  in  the  brethren  ;  but  St.  John  seems 
mainly  occupied  with  the  thought  of  the  death 
of  Christ,  and  of  the  life  which  is  centred  in  Him. 
As  St.  James  also  presupposed  without  alluding  in 
terms  to  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  so  St.  John,  on  the 
other  hand,  not  only  presupposes  but  expressly 
refers  to  that  work ;  for,  says  he,  ye  have,  an  unction 
from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all  things} 

But  that  which  will  at  once  be  recognised  as 
the  most  characteristic  feature  of  the  teaching  of 
St.  John  s  Epistles  is  the  prominence  he  assigns  to 
love.  The  bent  of  St.  James's  character  was  moral 
righteousness  and  integrity,  that  of  St.  John's  is 
devout  and  fervent  love.  It  was  a  love  borrowed 
from  the  love  of  Him  who  laid  down  His  life  for 
sinners.  It  is  this  love  whereby  we  are  to  have 
boldness  in  the  day  of  judgment, "^  in  the  expectation 
of  which  day  of  His  appearing  we  detect  another 
point  of  contact  with  St,  James,  as  likewise  with 
St.  Paul.  The  notion  of  a  death  for  sin,  the  effect 
of  which  has  been  to  put  away  sin  and  to  cleanse 
from  sin,^  is  so  common  in  St.  Paul  that  we  need 

1   1   John  ii.  20.     Cf.  also  iii.  24  ;  iv.  13. 
2  iv.  17.  ^2  Cor.  V.  21,  etc. 


324  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

not  dwell  upon  it ;  and  the  notion  of  a  love  derived 
from  the  love  of  Christ  cannot  be  foreign  to  him 
who  has  drawn  for  us  the  famous  picture  of  love  in 
his  First  Epistle  to  Corinth. 

It  is  clear,  then,  that  these  various  writings  are 
so  many  illustrations  of  the  effect  produced  upon 
individual  minds  by  the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
and  the  belief  that  He  was  the  Christ.  It  is  not 
upon  their  authority  that  we  dwell,  so  much  as 
upon  the  undeniable  evidence  they  afibrd  of  the 
operation  of  a  particular  belief,  based  upon  a  series 
of  facts  which  are  manifestly  common  to  all  the 
writers.  That  this  belief  and  these  facts  would 
operate  variously  on  various  minds  was  only  natural 
and  to  be  expected.  The  differences,  however,  are 
plainly  differences  of  individual  character,  and  the 
identity  of  operation  and  the  sameness  of  results 
produced,  which  are  recognisable  in  all,  are  the 
more  remarkable  from  this  necessary  contrast  of 
individual  character.  And  it  is  the  general  and 
broad  result  thus  j^roduced  in  a  variety  of  minds 
manifestly  so  independent  as  to  be  capable  of  being 
not  seldom  represented  as  antagonistic,  that  we 
call  the  doctrine,  or  conception,  or  religion  of  the 
Christ.  The  unity  and  completeness  of  the  full 
idea  are  to  be  gathered  only  from  a  survey  of  all 
the  records.  One  part  of  the  conception  is  more 
prominent  in  some  writings  than  it  is  in  others. 
But,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  are  requisite  for  the 


lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  325 

expression   of  the   complete  conception   before  we 
can  deal  with  it  as  a  substantive  whole. 

With  a  view  to  this,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Peter  The  First 
and  St.  Jude  may  be  briefly  mentioned  next.  In  st^'peten 
the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  it  matters  not  now 
who  wrote  it,  we  have  in  the  opening  verses  the 
suflferings,  death,  resurrection,  and  future  appearing 
oi  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ}  "The  strangers"  to 
whom  it  is  written  are  addressed  as  elect  accordmg 
to  the  forehiowledge  of  God  the  Father,  and  they 
are  characterised  as  having  been  horn  again  not  of 
corruptible  seed,  hut  of  incorruptihle,  hy  the  word 
or  reason  of  God,  who  liveth  and  ahidethfor  ever} 
Furthermore,  we  have  mention  made  of  sanctif  ca- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  which  is  the  spirit  of  Christ, 
through  which  the  disciples  have  p)urified  their 
souls  in  oheying  the  truth  ;^  and  the  Gospel,  which 
is  identified  with  the  spoken  word  of  the  Lord,*  is 
said  to  have  been  preached  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
sent  down  from  heaven}  The  redemption  of  be- 
lievers is  said  to  be  ivith  the  precious  hlood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb,  without  blemish  and  ivithout 
spot,^  showing  that  the  writer  recognised  in  the 
death  of  Jesus  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  types 
of  the  law.  The  Epistle  is  evidence  also  that  many 
Gentiles,  which  in  time  past  were  not  a  people,  had 

^   1  Pet.  i.  1-11.  2  I  23.  3  i.  2,  11,  22. 

4  i.  25.  ^  i.  12.  6  i.  19. 


326  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  VIII. 


now  become  the  people  of  God  ;^  that  they  willingly 
regarded  themselves  as  spiritual  heirs  of  the  pro- 
mises made  to  Israel ;  and  that  this  change  in  their 
position  had  been  brought  about  by  their  acknow- 
ledgment of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.^  It  is  clear,  also, 
that  times  of  trouble  were  at  hand,  and  that  some 
had  begun  to  be  reproached  for  the  name  of  Christ, 
and  to  suffer  for  being  called  Christian;^  but  the 
day  of  Christ's  glory  was  about  to  be  revealed, 
when  they  would  be  glad  with  exceeding  joy.* 
The  practice  of  baptism  as  a  common  rite  ^  is  also 
spoken  of  in  this  Epistle,  and  the  responsibility  of 
godly  conversation  is  strongly  insisted  upon.^ 
The  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  chiefly  re- 

IpSk  of  markable  for  its  vivid  anticipation  of  judgment,  for 
St.  Peter.  ^^^  strenuous  inculcation  of  holiness  and  denun- 
ciation of  ungodliness,  and  for  the  additional  title 
of  Saviour,^  which  it  frequently  assigns  to  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  Familiarity  with  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  Testament,  and  frequent  allusion  to  them, 
are  characteristic  of  both  these  Epistles. 
The  Passing  on  to  St.  Jude,  we  find  that  his  Epistle 

is  addressed  to  them  that  are  sanctified  by  God  the 
Father  and  preserved  in  or  reserved  for  Jesus  Christ, 
and  called.^  The  writer  speaks  of  the  common  sal- 
vation, which  he  implies  was  obtained  through  the 

1   1  Pet.  ii.  10.        2  ij_  7_        3  j^   12,  14,  IG.         ^  iv.  13. 

5  iii.  21.     ^  i.  15,  etc.         ^   q  Pet.  i.  1,  11  ;  ii.  20  ;  iii.  2, 18. 

«  Jude  1. 


Epistle  of 
St.  Jude. 


lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  327 

g)xice  of  God  and  our  Lo)xl  Jesus  Christ}  He 
exhorts  his  disciples,  by  confirmation  in  the  faith 
and  prayer  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  keep  themselves 
i)i  the  love  of  God,  looking  for  the  onerci/  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto  eternal  life}  He  makes 
mention  of  certain  feasts  of  charity,^  and  speaks 
of  the  apostles  of  om'  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose 
spoken  words  must  have  been  fresh  in  the  memory 
of  those  to  whom  he  wrote. ^  We  are  here,  then,  as 
it  were,  brought  face  to  face  with  men  who  had 
listened  to  the  teaching  of  those  who  had  received 
their  commission  from  the  Lord  himself,  and  we 
have  collateral  evidence  of  the  general  tenor  of  their 
teaching. 

The  opening  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John  bears  The 
witness  to  belief  in  Jesus  as  one  who  had  died  and  of%^t.^ '"" 
risen  again  ;^  who  was  to  come  with  clouds,  when-'°  "' 
every  eye  should  see  him,  and  they  a^so  which  pieixed 
him}      His  death  had   not  only  been   a   priestly 
expiation  from  sin,  but  it  had  conferred  a  priesthood 
upon  believers,^  even  as  Si.  Peter  had  called  them 
a  royal  priesthood}     The  offices  of  king  and  priest, 
which  were  united  in  Jesus  Christ,  were  united  also 
in  believers.     The  sublime  vision  of  the  Son  of  Man 
in  glory  is  the  most  remarkable  feature  of  this  part 
of  the  Apocalypse,  the  whole  of  which  book  is  itself 
an  exhibition  of  the  glorified  Jesus  in  His  character 

'  Jude  4.  '^   21.  3   12.  ■»    17. 

°  Rev.  i.  18.  <5  i.  7.  ^  j.  e.  «   1  Pet.  ii.  9. 


328  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

of  judge.  The  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  Asia 
recognise  Him  as  the  Son  of  God  ;^  as  he  ivhich 
searcheth  the  hearts  and  reins,  and-  vjill  give  to  every 
one  according  to  his  works}  Each  of  these  Epistles 
ends  with  the  remarkable  words,^ — He  that  hath  an 
ear,  let  him  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  unto  the 
churches, — the  Spirit  being  clearly  the  Spirit  of 
Christ  or  of  Him  which  hath  the  seven  Spirits  of 
God?  Jesus  Christ  is  further  represented  in  the 
Apocalypse  as  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judali,^  the 
root  ajid  offspring  of  David,^  the  Lamb  slain  from 
the  foundation  of  the  wo7'ld,^  who  hath  redeemed  us 
to  God  by  his  blood  out  of  every  kindred,  and 
tongue,  and  people,  and  nation?  The  saints  arrayed 
in  white  robes  are  said  to  be  they  which  came  out  oj 
great  tribulation,  and  had  washed  their  robes  and 
made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb}  When 
the  seventh  angel  sounded,  there  were  great  voices 
in  heaven,  saying, — The  kingdoms  of  this  ivorld  are 
become  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ ; 
and  he  shall  reign  for  ever  and  ever?  The  testi- 
mony of  Jesus  is  declared  to  be  the  spirit  of  pro- 
phecy ;^^  and  finally.  He  is  Himself  called  TAe  Word 
of  God,  and  is  said  to  have  on  his  vesture  and  on  his 
thigh  a  name  written,  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of 
lords  ?^ 


1  Rev.  ii. 

18. 

2  ii.  23. 

3  iii.  1. 

*  V.  5. 

^  xxii.  16. 

6  xiii.  S. 

7  V.  9.  • 

»  vii.  13,  14. 

9  xi.  15. 

10  xix.  10. 

"   xix.  IG. 

Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  329 

Such  is  a  brief  summary  of  the  Apocalyptic  con- 
ception of  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  Whatever  may  be 
the  date  of  the  Kevelation,  it  expresses,  perhaps,  the 
fullest  development  of  the  Messianic  character  and 
glories  of  Jesus,  and  it  is  unquestionably  the  work 
of  a  man  who  had  been  nurtured  in  Judaism.  It 
represents,  moreover,  the  fullest  effect  produced  by 
turning  the  many-coloured  light  of  prophecy  upon 
the  personal  history  of  Jesus.  The  writer  sees  in 
all  prophecy,  from  Genesis  to  Daniel,  a  testimony 
bearing  witness  to  Jesus.  It  is  plain,  moreover,  that 
the  two  features  of  the  Godhead  and  of  the  priest- 
hood of  the  Messiah,  which  are  more  especially 
wrought  out  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  are  con- 
tained in  form  and  essence  in  the  Revelation,  as 
they  were  implied  in  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter 
and  in  many  of  those  of  St.  Paul.  Though  this  last 
great  anonymous  Epistle  has  expanded  more  fully 
the  priesthood  of  Jesus,  it  has  not,  in  doing  so,  added 
any  new  feature  to  His  character. 

We  are,  therefore,  now  in  a  position  to  survey 
as  a  whole  the  doctrine  or  religion  of  the  Christ,  as 
it  is  contained  in  the  earliest  Christian  writings  we 
possess,  and  developed  by  them  out  of  materials 
previously  existing  in  the  sacred  writings  of  the 
Jews. 

And  first,  there  is  the  clear  fact,  not  only  attested  The 
by  history,  but  which  we  must  also  postulate  in  that  follow 
order  to  account  for  the  phenomena  presented  in  tS^  ^ 


330  The  Christ  of 


Lect.  VIII. 


these  writings  of  the  human  life  and  death  of  Jesus. 
That  human  life  and  death  is  the  corner-stone  of 
their  existence,  which,  without  it,  would  have  been 
impossible.  Secondly,  there  is  the  fact,  equally  cer- 
tain, that  this  same  Jesus  was  proclaimed  by  men 
of  various  minds  and  characters  as  the  Christ,  for 
without  it  also  the  Christian  literature  could  have 
had  no  existence.  Thirdly,  there  is  the  necessary 
inference  that  the  Christ-character  which  He  was 
declared  to  have  fulfilled  was  a  substantive  reality, 
not  only  in  the  minds  of  those  who  received  Him, 
but  of  those  also  who  rejected  Him  in  that  character, 
and  consequently  that  this  ideal  conception  had 
been,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  produced  by  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament.  Fourthly,  there  is  the  no  less 
necessary  inference,  that  it  was  impossible  for  Jesus 
to  have  Ijeen  thus  accepted  in  consequence  of  the 
effect  produced  only  by  His  life  and  death.  We 
must  postulate  other  influences,  which  are  mainly 
two,  —  first,  the  reality  of  His  resurrection;  and 
secondly,  the  reality  of  the  effects  which  accom- 
panied and  followed  His  recognition  as  the  Christ  in 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  evidence  of  the 
reality  of  this  gift  is  in  our  own  hands,  and  consists 
in  the  existence  of  the  earliest  Christian  literature 
embodied  in  the  New  Testament.  There  is  irresist- 
ible and  conclusive  evidence  there  of  the  operation 
of  a  new  power,  to  which  there  is  no  complete  ana- 
logy in  the  history  or  literature  of  the  world,  but  to 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  331 

which   coiTohorative  witness  is  borne  even  in  the 
linguistic  phenomena  of  these  writings. 

For  example,  there  is  no  phrase  in  the  Old  Tes-  The 

T  •  iTTioi'-^T       ex]iression 

tament  directly  answernig  to  the  Holy  Spirit  of  the  "The 
New.  We  have  of  course  such  phrases  as,  il\e  Spirit  Spirit" 
of  God,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord,  my  Spirit,  and  the 
like.  We  have  thy  Holy  Spirit  once  in  the  fifty-first 
Psalm,^  and  his  Holy  Spirit  twice  in  the  sixty-third 
of  Isaiah, — but  even  these  phrases  nowhere  else  ;  but 
tlie  Holy  Spirit  never  occurs.  No  sooner,  however,  do 
we  open  these  pages,  than  we  encounter,  for  the  first 
time,  a  new  and  original  phrase, — the  Holy  Ghost, 
which  occurs  repeatedly,  in  all  nearly  a  hundred 
times,  is  found  in  almost  every  book,  and  is  used  by 
every  writer  of  the  New  Testament  with  the  single 
exception  of  St.  James,  who,  however,  as  we  have 
seen,  implies,  in  very  remarkable  words,  the  opera- 
tion of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  natural  inference, 
therefore,  is,  that  this  new  phraseology  is  expressive 
of  a  new  fact ;  and  we  know  that  the  apostles  laid 
claim  to  the  bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  a  new 
gift,  and  appealed  to  it  as  the  most  convincing  proof 
that  their  message  was  a  true  one. 

It  is  surely,  then,  incidental  evidence  of  the 
reality  of  the  new  gift  they  claimed  to  bestow,  that 
their  waitings  are  so  full  of  allusions  to  it  which  are 

^  This  phrase  alone  occiirs  also  in  Wisdom  ix.  17 — "And  thy 
counsel  who  hath  known,  except  thou  give  wisdom,  and  send  thy 
Holy  Spirit  from  above  ?" 


332  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

couched  in  language  that  is  also  new.  There  is 
nothing  even  in  the  Old  Testament  answering  to  the 
continual  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  New. 
The  idea  exists  there  in  germ,  as  does  also  the  idea 
of  the  Christ ;  but  the  full  development  of  both  ideas 
is  the  great  literary  fact  of  the  New  Testament, 
which  is  patent  and  demonstrable, 
is  the  If,  therefore,  this  new  and  original  gift,  which 

rilew  fa°ct.  was  coufcsscd  alike  by  Jew  and  Gentile,  by  Roman 
and  Greek,  by  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  and  free, 
and  has  left  for  all  ages  its  indelible  mark  and 
its  indestructible  monument  in  the  literature  of  the 
New  Testament,  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  product 
of  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  and 
its  accompaniment ; — if,  as  an  historic  result,  which 
there  is  no  denying,  the  confession  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ,  and  that  alone,  was  the  origin  of  this  litera- 
ture, and  the  effects  to  which  it  witnesses — may  we 
not  affirm  that  the  credit  of  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
Avhich  is  also  the  Spirit  of  promise,  is,  in  a  manner, 
staked  upon  the  validity  and  truth  of  that  to  which 
He  so  clearly  testified — namely,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ,  the  chosen  of  God,  who  was  declared  to  he 
the  Son  of  God  with  poiuer,  according  to  the  Spirit 
of  holiness,  hy  the  resurrection  from  the  dead} 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  broad  issue 
thus  presented  is  virtually  independent  of  a  variety 
of  questions   which   may   be   proposed   as   to   the 

'■  Eom.  i.  4. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  333 

authorship  and  date  of  various  books.  The 
acknowledged  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  themselves 
a  mine  of  testimony  to  the  nature  of  early  Christian 
belief,  and  the  facts  on  which  it  rested.  They  carry 
us  back  far  within  the  limits  of  the  generation  in 
which  Jesus  lived  and  died,  and  they  show  the  kind 
of  effect  which  belief  in  Him  had  produced. 
Whether  this  or  that  other  Epistle  is  by  him,  or 
when  it  was  written,  does  not  really  affect  the  main 
issue,  which  is  clear  enough  without.  Putting  the 
extreme  case  that  the  name  of  Peter  has  been 
wrongly  affixed  to  the  first  Epistle  bearing  it,  the 
whole  value  of  the  document  as  a  witness  to  Christ  The  points 

-TTT  -n    1      T  of  contact 

does  not  turn  upon  that.      We  may  still  believe  that  in  the 
it  truly  represents  the  condition  and  faith  of  many  writings 
scattered  througlwut  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  in°portant 
Asia,  and  Bitliynia,^  who,  being  the  elect  of  God,  as  of  contrast. 
lively  stones  had  been  built  up  a  spiritual  house, 
a  holy  priesthood,  to  offer  up  spiritual  sacrijices 
acceptable  to  God  by  Jesus   Christ.^     The  patent 
phenomena  of  it  as  a  literary  monument  have  still 
to  be  accounted  for.     And  taken  only  as  such  it  is 
one  witness  more  to  the  marvellous  effects  brought 
about  by  belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  which  from 
other  sources  Avere  sufficiently  plain  already. 

Nor  is  it  possible  that  this  position  can  be 
seriously  aiffected  by  the  most  that  can  be  made  out 
of  the  obvious  divergencies  of  Christian  teaching,  as, 

1  St.  Peter  i.  1.  ^  ii.  5. 


334  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

for  example,  those  of  St.  James  and  St.  Paul.  It  is 
not  the  divergencies  that  are  the  most  remarkable 
feature.  These  exist  in  the  acknowledged  writings 
of  St.  Paul  himself,  and  they  must  exist  in  the 
writings  of  any  man.  The  common  foundation  of 
underlying  fact  that  is  apparent,  and  the  implicit 
unity  of  originating  motive  at  work,  in  both,  are  the 
points  of  real  moment  to  be  observed.  And  these 
are  no  less  patent  in  one  than  in  the  other  ;  and  the 
conclusion  to  which  they  lead  us  is  the  same,  that 
the  Jesus  who  was  glorified  and  would  return  to 
judgment  was  acknowledged  as  the  Christ,  and  that 
belief  in  Him  was  an  obligation  to  consistent  holiness 
of  life. 

Thus  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  present 
us  with  the  full  development  and  expansion  of  an 
idea  which  existed  in  germ  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  idea,  that  is,  of  the  Christ  or  the  Messiah.  The 
historic  growth  of  this  idea  is  distinctly  traceable  in 
the  ancient  Scriptures.  The  earliest  indications  of 
it  are  to  be  found  in  Genesis,  the  latest  in  Daniel, 
and  the  post- captivity  prophets.  Each  successive 
stage  of  the  history  and  each  successive  period  of 
the  literature  added  its  own  contribution  to  the 
thought,  till  the  actual  result  of  the  whole  was  the 
undefined  and  yet  definite  expectation  of  the 
Messiah  which  was  rife  in  the  Jewish  nation  long 
before  the  commencement  of  the  Christian  era. 
As,  however,  it  was  impossible  that  any  one  element 


lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  335 

in  the  Old  Testament  conception  should  have  been 
the  natural  parent  of  any  other, — that  the  fifty-third 
of  Isaiah,  for  instance,  should  have  been  suggested  by 
or  grown  out  of  the  twenty-second  Psalm,  or  Daniel's 
prophecy  of  the  Messiah  have  been  originated  by 
Jeremiah's  prediction  of  the  captivity,  or  the  like — 
so  also  is  it  impossible  that  all  these  elements  com- 
bined should  have  created  that  full  development  of 
the  conception  which  is  presented  in  the  collective 
books  of  the  New  Testament. 

At  the  close  of  the  reion  of  Tiberius  Ca3sar  all  The  rapid 

^  ^  ,         develop- 

that  the  world  knew  of  this  Messianic  conception  meat  of  the 

was  contained  in  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  idea 
and  the  popular  faith  derived  from  them.  Within 
the  space  of  two  generations  afterwards,  that  doc- 
trine of  the  Christ,  as  it  is  contained  in  the  bulk  of 
the  New  Testament  literature,  existed  in  its  in- 
tegrity. That  the  seed  had  expanded  into  the  tree 
of  mighty  growth,  is  an  undoubted  fact  both  of 
history  and  of  literature.  For  it  is  with  literary 
monuments  that  we  are  now  dealing.  The  four 
great  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  impossible  phenomena 
if  they  had  nothing  but  the  Old  Testament  to  rest 
on.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  one  could  not  have 
originated  the  other.  And  yet  the  Pauline  letters 
could  not  have  existed  without  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  Between  these  two  great  literary  facts, 
as  an  inevitable  and  connecting  link,  there  occurred 
the  historic  fact  of  the  human  life  and  death  of  Jesus. 


336  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

the  result    As  that  human  life  and  death  can  alone  account  for 

of  the 

human  life  the  relation  subsisting  between  the  two,  so  is  it  also 

of  Jesus.  .  ,        .    .         . 

the  one  historic  and  originating  cause  without  which 
these  Epistles  could  not  have  existed.  But  the 
mere  life  and  death  of  a  Man  who  Himself  left  no 
abiding  memorial  behind  Him,  could  not,  together 
with  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  have 
given  birth  to  a  new  and  unique  literature,  unless 
there  were  elements  in  His  character  and  history  as 
unique  as  the  results  which  they  produced.  That 
Jesus  was  the  Christ  is  the  uniform  and  consistent 
testimony  of  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  the 
belief  that  He  was  is  the  only  occasion  for  their 
existence  as  writers.  That  He,  being  the  Christ  of 
prophecy,  contained  in  Himself  the  fulfilment  of  all 
the  past  -and  the  promise  of  all  the  future — that  He 
was  at  once  the  root  and  the  offspring  of  David, 
and  the  bright  and  morning  star,^  the  realisation  of 
the  old  and  the  inaugurator  of  the  new  dispensation, 
the  fountain  of  eternal  life  and  the  giver  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  and  thus  should  have  been  the  adequate 
and  sufficient  origin  of  effects  so  mighty  and  so 
marvellous,  is  conceivable;  but  that  the  effects,  being 
no  less  mighty  and  marvellous  than  they  are,  should 
have  been  produced  when  His  alleged  character 
was  a  fiction,  and  His  personal  influence  an  un- 
reality, is  not  conceivable,  and  reduces  us  to  the 
necessity  of  rejecting  a  cause  commensurate  with 

^  Rev.  xxii.  16. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  337 

the  effect  in  order  that  we  may  choose  one  which 
would  be  altogether  and  wholly  inadequate. 

As,  moreover,  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  are  un-TheCiirist- 

/.-,.  -,,...,.  .  conception 

laitermg  and  decisive  in  their  testimony  to  the  spiritual, 
reality  of  the  human  life  of  Jesus,  so  also  do  they 
contain  within  themselves  the  germ  of  the  perfect 
conception  of  His  character  as  the  Christ.  That 
character  is  of  necessity  an  ideal  because  it  is  a 
spiritual  one.  Christ  as  He  was  known  after  the 
flesh  was  the  son  of  Mary  who  was  crucified 
through  weakness.  The  conditions  of  His  natural 
life  were  confounding  to  flesh  and  blood,  and  they 
culminated  in  tlie  offence  of  the  cross.  The  very 
assertion  that  He  was  the  Christ  involved  a  certain 
idealisation  of  those  spiritual  functions  the  title 
implied,  which  could  not  be  discernible  by  flesh 
and  blood.  The  priesthood  of  Christ,  His  eternal 
Sonship,  His  future  return  to  judgment,  even  His 
resurrection  and  ascension,  to  some  extent  appealed 
to  the  imagination  and  to  the  spiritual  faculties  to 
apprehend  them.  They  could  not  be  the  objects  of 
experience  to  the  natural  senses.  Their  contempla- 
tion involved  the  exercise  of  other  powers.  The 
fact  that  it  was  these  topics  that  the  Epistles  dealt 
with,  w^ould  itself  explain  the  marked  difference 
existing  between  them  and  the  Gospels  or  the 
Acts.  The  Christ  was  of  necessity  an  internal 
conception  endued  with  all  the  glory  and  majesty 
which  was  hidden  from  the  natural  eye  in  the 
z 


been 
antici- 
pated, 


338  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

human  Jesus.  It  was  the  discovery  of  the  one  in 
the  other,  and  the  fulfihiient  in  Jesus  of  the  ideal 
character  of  the  Christ  that  produced  the  pheno- 
mena of  conversion,  and  gave  the  impulse  to  those 
mighty  results  of  which  the  Epistles  themselves  are 
the  lasting  monument  and  the  abiding  proof, 
producing  But  then  tlicsc  results  were  the  very  last  that 
to  have  the  Scripturcs  of  the  Old  Testament  would  have 
produced.  It  was  the  person  of  Jesus  acting 
through  those  Scriptures  that  produced  the  results. 
It  was  His  life,  His  death.  His  resurrection,  His 
ascension,  but  pre-eminently  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
He  promised  to  send,  that  awoke  in  those  ancient 
writings  their  latent  fire,  and  produced,  through 
their  agency  and  through  the  answer  given  to  their 
prophetic  promises  and  hoj)es,  those  phenomena  of 
new  and  spiritual  life  of  which  the  New  Testament 
itself  is  the  greatest  witness. 

And  this  is  what  we  mean  by  the  historic 
development  of  the  Christ-conception  or  of  the 
religion  of  the  Christ.  Within  thirty  years  after 
the  death  of  Jesus,  all  the  essential  features  of  that 
doctrine  or  conception  were  fully  developed.  What- 
ever was  added  afterwards  by  the  Revelation  of 
St.  John,  for  example,  or  by  other  books,  was  not  a 
substantive  addition  ;  it  had  existed  long  before  in 
the  faith  of  believers  and  in  the  record  of  their 
belief.  This  is  a  matter  of  history,  resting  upon 
documentary  evidence  which  is  unexceptionable. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  339 

It  is  plain,  moreover,  that  the  effects  which 
followed  the  acknowledgment  of  Jesus  as  the 
highest  and  complete  fulfilment  of  prophecy,  were 
not  only  unique  as  a  matter  of  history,  but  also 
that  there  is  no  other  life  or  character  which  could 
have  produced  the  same  results  through  the  opera-  wiucii 

mi  •  1  could  have 

tion  of  the  same  means.  There  is  no  other  person  been 
in  the  annals  of  history,  who  being  contemplated  by  no  one 
in  connection  Avith  the  same  writings  of  the  Old 
Testament,  is  capable  of  producing  such  a  combina- 
tion as  would  effect  a  similar  result.  Nor  have  we 
any  reason  to  believe  there  ever  will  be.  But,  as  an 
unquestionable  historic  fact,  these  great  results 
were  the  direct  and  immediate  fruit  of  belief  in 
Jesus  as  the  Christ.  It  is  hard  indeed,  therefore,  to 
resist  the  cogency  of  the  apostolic  assertion  that 
the  testimony  of  Jesus  is  the  spirit  of  p?'oj9/iec7/.^ 
We  are  constrained  to  acknowledge  that  the  unity 
and  completeness  of  the  full  conception  of  the 
Christ,  the  marvellous  way  in  which  it  fits  into  the 
anticipations  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  more  than 
fills  up  the  measure  of  its  significance,  and  yet  from 
this  very  fact  could  not  have  been  suggested  by 
those  writings,  as  it  historically  was  not,  is  its  own 
witness.  This  could  not  have  been,  as  it  assuredly 
was  not,  the  work  of  man.  Here,  if  anywhere,  is 
to  be  seen  the  finger  of  God.  By  these  indestruc- 
tible facts  of  history  and  of  literature,  even  more 

1  Rev.  xix.  10. 


340  The  CJwist  of  lect.  viii. 

plainly  than  by  a  voice  from  heaven,  He  has  de- 
clared of  Jesus,  Tills  is  m\j  heloved  Son,  in  ivhom  I 
am  well  jpleased^  and  has  set  the  seal  of  His 
Divine  approval  to  the  testimony  of  Apostles  and 
Evangelists  that  He  was  the  Christ. 

We  are  precluded,  then,  from  regarding  the  Christ 
doctrine,  even  as  it  is  expressed  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles, 
as  a  merely  Pauline  conception,  because  some  of  the 
most  essential  features  of  that  doctrine — such  as  the 
Messiahship,  the  glorification,  and  the  future  return 
of  Jesus — are  as  characteristic  of  St.  James  as  they 
are  of  St.  Paul ;  and  because  other  features  no  less 
prominent  in  him  are  common  with  him  to  the 
other  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  These  are,  the 
belief  in  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  fulfilment  in  Him 
which  that  implied  of  the  Scriptures  of  the  Pro- 
phets ;  the  life,  death,  resurrection,  ascension,  and 
final  manifestation  of  Jesus ;  His  perpetual  priest- 
hood, or  the  mystic  power  to  cleanse  from  sin  involved 
and  inherent  in  His  death  ;  the  sanctification  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  which  was  the  natural  and  yet  the  super- 
natural consequence  of  belief  in  Him  ;  and  the  requi- 
site consistency  in  holiness  of  life  enjoined  upon 
and  commonly  produced  in  those  who  became 
followers  of  Him,  as  well  as  the  union  of  believers 
with  God  and  with  one  another  through  their  union 
with  Him. 

And  to  this  historic  and  literary  development  of 

^  St.  Matt.  iii.  17  ;  xvii.  5. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  341 

the  Eeligion  of  the  Christ,  arising  as  it  did  out  of 
the  facts  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  and  the  light  which 
was  shed  by  them  on  the  Scriptures  of  the  Prophets, 
we  point  as  a  sufficient  and  conclusive  evidence  of 
its  origin. 

The  varietv,  the  independence,  and  the  gradual  The 

'  .  ...  evidence 

development,  of  the  materials  existing  in  the  Old  of  origin 
Testament,  which  supplied  the  foundation  of  it,  are  by  it. 
facts  that  cannot  be  gainsaid.  Neither  can  their 
existence,  regarded  merely  as  literary  phenomena, 
be  accounted  for  on  purely  natural  principles.  The 
ordinary  impulses  of  human  authorship  or  flights  of 
human  genius  will  not  account  for  or  explain  the 
mysterious  utterances  of  an  Isaiah  or  a  Zechariah. 
There  is  that  in  them  which  no  theory  of  merely 
human  causation  will  resolve.  Each  separate  stage 
in  the  marvellous  growth  is  a  witness  to  the  exist- 
ence of  the  earlier  one,  but  not  the  natural  or  the 
necessary  result  of  it.  Each  individual  writer  stands 
out  in  his  own  clearly-marked  and  characteristic 
personality,  spontaneously  but  unconsciously  add- 
ing his  own  fragment  to  the  mass  ;  and  not  till  the 
last  echoes  of  the  latest  Prophet  have  died  away  is 
the  result  seen  to  be  a  uniform  and  consistent 
whole.  Not  till  the  Son  of  man  has  come,  and  died 
and  risen  and  been  glorified,  is  it  perceived,  because 
before  it  could  not  be,  that  His  portraiture  was 
sketched  of  old  by  the  Prophets. 

And  when  we  come  to  that  life  itself,  it  is  not 


342  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viil 

till  we  find  the  impress  of  the  seal  on  the  plastic 
clay  of  human  life  which  has  been  regenerated,  re- 
newed, and  elevated,  recreated,  cleansed,  and  glori- 
fied, that  we  discover  what  the  seal  itself  had  been. 
The  death  which  could  communicate  itself  to  a  cor- 
rupt and  sinful  nature,  and  prove  the  destruction  of 
the  old  man,  could  have  been  no  ordinary  death.  It 
must  have  been  the  death  of  Him  on  whom  the  Lord 
had  laid  the  iniquity  of  us  all,  and  who  had  made 
His  soul  an  ofiering  for  sin.  The  resurrection  of 
Him  who  had  bestowed  sj^iritual  life  on  others,  which 
had  brought  forth  such  fruit  in  them  as  the  Epistles 
to  Kome  and  Ephesus  are  samples  of,  must  have 
been  itself  a  reality,  the  demonstration  of  an  inherent 
principle  of  eternal  life  which  was  undying  and  had 
cast  out  death.  To  Him  who  had  shed  forth  on  the 
new  society  gifts  of  the  Spirit  so  unmistakable  and 
so  abundant,  the  Spirit  itself  must  have  been  given 
■without  measure.  He  had  indeed  received  gifts 
for  men,  yea  even  for  His  enemies,  because  He  had 
ascended  up  on  high,  and  had  led  captivity  captive, 
that  the  Lord  God  might  dwell  among  them. 
Recapitu-  And  lastly,  in  the  historic  development  of  the 

religion  and  doctrine  of  the  Christ,  appearing  as  it 
does  first  in  the  Prophets  in  a  form  inchoate  and 
germinal,  next  in  the  Epistles  in  a  form  fully 
matured  and  comj^letc,  and  lastly  in  the  historic 
books  of  the  New  Testament,  which  endeavour  to 
recall  the  image  of  the  liviug  Jesus  in  the  form  of 


lation. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  343 

remiuiscences  of  au  actual  human  life,  we  have  the 
clearest  possible  proof  of  the  real  origin  of  that 
doctrine.  The  Epistles  of  necessity  presuppose  the 
fact  of  a  previously-existing  human  life  in  all  mate- 
rial points  identical  with  that  portrayed  in  the 
Gospels.  It  cannot  be  alleged  that  these  Epistles 
owe  their  existence  to  the  prior  existence  of  the 
Gospels.  On  the  contrary,  they  exhibit  the  central 
fact  of  the  Gospels  in  active  operation,  probably,  or 
at  least  possibly,  long  before  they  were  any  one  of 
them  written.  At  all  events,  their  testimony  is 
entirely  independent,  as  from  the  nature  of  the  case 
it  is  undesigned.  We  have  then  to  account  for  the 
phenomena  they  present  without  drawing  upon  any 
existing  sources,  or  sources  known  to  have  existed, 
except  those  which  already  existed  in  the  Scriptures 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

But  these  of  themselves  are  manifestly  inade- 
c[uate  to  account  for  them.  We  must  throw  in  the 
human  life  of  Jesus,  including  the  central  and  essen- 
tial facts  of  that  life,  without  which  it  alone  would 
have  been  inadequate  to  account  for  them.  If 
the  Epistles  could  possibly  be  regarded  merely  as 
the  expression  of  individual  sentiment  and  opinion, 
the  case  would  of  course  be  very  different.  But 
they  cannot  be  so  regarded.  They  are  themselves 
the  evidence  of  certain  facts,  as  also  is  the  personal 
history  of  their  author.  His  early,  no  less  than  his 
later  career,  is  only  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  sup- 


344  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

position  of  the  reality  of  tlie  life  of  Jesus.  His 
writings  show  us  that  life,  operating  not  as  a  past 
but  as  a  present  influence,  not  only  in  himself  but  in 
others.  They  spring  from  no  morbid  attachment  to 
a  dead  man,  but  are  instinct  with  the  Almighty 
power  and  with  the  Divine  Spirit  of  a  risen  and  tri- 
umphant Saviour.  Judged,  therefore,  merely  as 
literary  results,  they  can  only  be  assigned  to  delusion 
or  to  madness,  if  their  real  origin  is  not  that  which 
it  claims  to  be.  The  hypothesis  of  delusion  is  un- 
tenable, because  it  demands  too  wide  an  area.  The 
hypothesis  of  madness  was  long  ago  anticipated  and 
precluded  in  a  defence  attributed  to  the  writer  him- 
self— /  mn  not  mad,  most  nohle  Festus,  hut  speak 
forth  the  words  of  truth  and  soherness} 

The  historic  development,  therefore,  of  the 
Christ-doctrine  is  a  manifest  proof  of  the  historic 
origin  of  Christianity,  of  that  religion  of  which  it 
is  the  essential  basis.  In  Christianity  we  are 
brought  face  to  face  with  a  religion  which  as  a 
matter  of  fact  sprang  from  facts,  and  was  based 
upon  the  foundation  of  a  human  life.  All  evidence 
is  fatal  to  the  notion  that  it  was  a  congeries  of 
coagulated  sentiment.  It  was  no  cobweb  of  fictions 
spun  from  the  brain  of  overwrought  and  deluded 
preachers.  We  cannot  trace  it  home  to  any  such 
origin  or  birthplace.  Its  simplest  and  most 
elementary   expression    was   Jesus   is    the    Christ. 

^  Acts  xxvi.  25. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Bookt 


345 


And  this  was  not  only  simple  and  elementary,  but 
it  was  essential  and  uniform.  There  was  and  could 
be  no  Christianity  where  this  expression  did  not 
obtain.  If  the  Christ  was  an  ideal  conception,  it 
was  one  which  owed  more  than  half  its  existence 
and  all  its  glory  to  the  realities  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
That  life  was  the  vital  spark,  which,  falling  on  the 
prepared  substance  of  ancient  prophecy,  produced 
a  conflagration  which  set  the  whole  world  in  a  blaze. 
/  am  come  to  send  fire  on  the  earth,  and  tvhat  ivill 
I  if  it  he  already  kindled  ?  ^ 

But  that  the  material  was  prepared  beforehand, 
was  the  work  of  God,  and  not  of  man,  and  that  the 
vital  spark  was  deposited  in  a  human  life  which 
through  death  could  destroy  him  that  had  the 
power  of  death,  is  evidence  that  that  human  life 
was  the  gift  of  God,  and  derived  from  God  as  no 
other  life  could  be.  TJiis  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  ivell  pleased.^  No  other  fact  of  his- 
tory, no  other  human  life,  falling  on  the  same 
substance,  could  have  produced  the  same  result, 
nor  would  this  human  life,  falling  upon  any  similar 
substance  not  similarly  prepared.  It  was  the  union 
of  these  two,  but  of  these  two  only,  which  resulted, 
or  could  have  resulted,  in  the  way  it  did. 

What  is  the  inference,  therefore  ? — Verily,  that 
the  expression  Jesus  is  the  Christ  was,  as  the 
Apostles  declared  it  to  be,  and  as  the  Holy  Spirit 

^  St.  Luke  xii.  49.  2  §{-_  ]y£att.  xvii.  5. 


346  The  Christ  of  lect.  viii. 

testified,  the  utterance  of  the  truth  of  God.     This 
was  the  record  that  God  gave  of  His  Son. 
The  But   we  find   in  this    Christ-doctrine  and  Ee- 

perma-"^"  ligiou  of  the  Christ  not  only  an  evidence  of  its 
iienceo  j^ig^Qj^jjj  origin  in  the  world  of  fact,  but  an  indi- 
reigion.  (.r^^JQjj  r^^^  of  j^g  dcstiucd  permanence.  It  is 
independent  alike  of  the  changes  of  fortune  and 
the  chances  of  time.  Empires  may  dissolve  and 
monarchies  may  fall,  but  this  religion  will  stand. 
No  revelations  of  science  in  the  future  can  reverse 
or  unwrite  the  record  of  the  past,  which  is  deep 
graven  in  the  facts  of  human  literature  and  history. 
If  as  a  matter  of  undeniable  fact  the  consequence 
of  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  was  what 
we  have  seen  it  to  be,  it  becomes  impossible  to 
imagine  that  the  Christ-doctrine  was  nothing 
more*  than  a  temporary  and  transient  feature  of 
the  movement.  We  cannot  see  in  these  results  a 
marked  indication  of  the  finger  of  God,  a  setting 
of  the  seal  of  the  Divine  Spirit  to  the  truth  of  a 
message  proclaimed  in  obedience  to  the  Divine  will, 
and  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  the  message  was 
something  more  than  of  temporary  significance  and 
of  transient  import.  If  this  was  the  Divine  message 
in  a  way  that  no  other  message  ever  was  Divine, 
then  we  can  hardly  venture  to  afiirm  that  the 
essential  terms  of  it  were  in  their  essence  tran- 
sitory. We  can  scarcely  suppose  that  it  will  be 
a  matter  of  indifi'erence  whether  or  not  we  cease  to 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  347 

regard  Jesus  as  the  Christ.  To  take  Him  only  as 
He  is  known  to  the  wildest  unbelief — as  a  human 
teacher  of  great  originality,  as  a  successful  reformer, 
as  an  enthusiast  who  was  Himself  the  victim  of 
extraordinary  delusions — will  in  no  degree  be  com- 
patible w^itli  the  literary  phenomena  of  the  New 
Testament  which  we  possess  as  the  actual  outcome 
and  result  of  His  personal  influence,  whatever  His 
personal  character  may  have  been.  If  a  similar 
estimate  of  the  character  of  St.  Paul  will  fail  to 
account  for  the  remarkable  features  of  the  Pauline 
writings,  still  less  will  this  theory  of  the  character 
of  Jesus  be  consistent  with  those  features,  because 
it  implies  on  His  part  not  only  delusion,  but  de- 
liberate and  energetic  deception.  The  centre  of 
Pauline  teaching  was  Jesus,  but  the  centre  of  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  was  Himself,  and  every  estimate 
of  His  character  is  inadequate  which  does  not 
recognise  this  fact.  If,  therefore,  we  cannot  have 
the  complete  conception  of  the  Christ-character 
without  the  human  life  of  Jesus,  so  neither  can 
we  have  any  adequate  or  just  notion  of  the  per- 
sonal life  of  Jesus  without  the  essential  elements  of 
the  Christ-character  combined  with  it.  Who  was 
Jesus,  if  He  was  not  the  Christ  ?  We  are  at  a  loss 
to  determine.  He  was  an  anomaly  in  human 
history,  standing  out  in  remarkable  relation  to  the 
ancient  literature  and  history  of  His  j)eople,  but 
having  nothing  to  do  with  it,  and  assuredly  not  pro- 


34^  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

duced  by  it — shedding  marvellous  light  on  all  other 
times  and  histories,  but  Himself  dwelling  in  dark- 
ness— undeniably  the  centre  and  source  of  a  unique 
collection  of  writings,  to  which  there  is  no  approxi- 
mate parallel  in  literature,  but  presenting,  in  His 
own  character,  the  strongest  possible  contrast  to  the 
acknowledged  tendency  of  those  writings,  because 
Himself  indifferent  to  truth  as  a  first  requisite  of 
virtue.  If  Jesus  was  not  what  the  Gospels,  Acts, 
and  Epistles,  agree  in  confessing  Him  to  have  been, 
we  not  only  are  unable  to  say  what  He  was,  but  are 
at  a  loss  to  account  for  their  existence  as  the  actual 
product  of  the  belief  that  He  was  the  Christ.  On 
the  assumption  that  their  combined  testimony  is 
true,  His  character  at  once  becomes  consistent  and 
intelligible,  and  their  existence  is  explained.  They 
were  the  substantial  and  permanent  bequest  of  Him 
who  was  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Testament.  They 
are  the  abiding  proof  of  the  reality  and  the  fulfil- 
ment of  that  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which  He 
made  to  His  disciples.  If  it  is  asked,  How  do  we 
know  that  He  made  it,  except  on  the  authority  of 
these  writings  themselves  ?  we  can  only  reply,  It 
is  more  in  accordance  with  reason  to  suppose  He  did 
than  it  is,  judging  from  the  nature  of  the  result  itself, 
to  imagine  that  the  promise  was  invented  to  give  the 
appearance  of  greater  mystery  to  that  which  already 
was  but  too  mysterious  ;  to  seem  to  account  for  that 
which,  with  or  without  it,  was  equally  unaccountable. 


Lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  349 

The  historic  development,  then,  of  the  doctrine  Conciu- 
and  religion  of  the  Christ  is  a  strong  moral  evidence  '''°"' 
of  its  origin.  It  was  not  invented  by  man.  In  the 
highest  and  truest  sense  it  was  God-given.  It  has 
all  the  characteristics  of  an  actual  and  a  genuine 
revelation.  Not  only  was  the  character  of  Jesus  the 
character  of  the  Son  of  God,  but  the  way  in  which 
His  life  gave  vitality  to  the  germinal  elements  of 
the  Christ-idea  latent  in  the  ancient  Scriptures,  and 
the  way  in  which  that  conception  gathered  strength 
and  grew,  as  it  were,  naturally,  and  yet  not  without 
an  energy  at  work  which  was  other  than  natural,  in 
the  threefold  and  mutually  independent  forms  of 
correspondence,  history,  biography,  till,  within  the 
period  of  an  ordinary  human  lifetime  from  the  death 
of  Jesus,  it  had  attained  its  fullest  development, 
and  was  substantially  complete  long  before  ;  and  the 
way  in  which  it  wrought,  like  leaven,  in  the  mass 
of  a  decaying  and  corrupt  humanity,  till  the  whole 
was  leavened  and  renewed, — is  the  highest  moral 
evidence  we  can  have  of  the  character  of  the  energy 
at  work,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  Will  whose  opera- 
tion it  revealed. 

No  mere  worship  of  humanity  unredeemed  and 
unregenerate  can  aspire  to  supersede  the  religion  of 
Jesus  as  the  Christ;  no  vague  residuum  of  the  various 
religions  of  the  world,  reduced  to  their  common 
elements  of  morality  and  truth,  can  hope  to  supplant 
this,  for  it  is  possessed  of  special  characteristics  which 
mark  it  out  as  separate  from  all.     No  other  religion 


3 so  The  Christ  of  Lect.  viii. 

has  an  origin  so  distinct  and  manifest  as  tliis.  No 
other  faith  has  the  evidence  of  an  inherent  vitality 
like  this.  No  other  has  the  promise  or  the  prospect 
of  permanence  like  this.  No  other  is  capable  of 
producing  fruits  that  redound  so  much  to  the  glory 
of  God  and  to  the  good  of  man  as  this.  No  other 
religion  may  so  fitly  be  called  Divine,  or  so  justly  be 
attributed  to  God,  as  this ;  for  none  can  so  clearly 
establish  her  credentials  or  make  good  her  claim. 

It  is  no  question,  however,  of  mere  superiority 
between  this  religion  and  any  other.  If  Christianity 
is  true,  that  is  to  say  if  the  religion  of  Jesus  as  the 
Christ  is  true,  it  is  true  as  no  other  is  true.  If  God 
has  indeed  set  His  seal  to  this  religion.  He  has  set  it 
in  a  way  that  He  has  not  set  it  to  any  other.  No 
other  religion  but  this,  saving  only  that  from  which 
it  sprang,  which  must  stand  or  fall  with  it,  can 
point  to  anything  like  the  same  pedigree  of  fact. 
No  other  religion  but  these  which  are  virtually  both 
one  as  regards  their  origin,  can  point  to  monuments 
so  enduring,  so  remarkable,  so  sublime,  so  holy. 
Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away ;  hut  my  words 
shall  not  pass  aivay}  was  a  bold  and  magnificent 
challenge  ;  but  it  was  something  more,  for  it  was  a 
challenge,  daring  as  it  was,  which  may  be  safely  left 
to  vindicate  and  prove  itself. 

Lord,  to  ivhom  shall  ive  go  f  thou  hast  the  words 
of  eternal  life,^  is  language  that  was  addressed  to 
Jesus,   and  which  can  be   addressed  to  no  human 

1  St.  Matt.  xxiv.  35  ;  St.  Luke  xxi.  33.  "  St.  John  vi.  68. 


lect.  VIII.  The  Other  Books.  351 

teacher.  We  may  be  luicertain  as  to  its  propriety 
when  addressed  to  Him  ;  but  we  can  scarcely 
venture  to  address  such  words  to  any  other.  He 
is  either  worthy  of  them,  or  He  is  not ;  if  He  is  not, 
then  there  is  no  one  else  that  we  can  name  in  com- 
parison of  Him  ;  but  if  He  is  worthy  of  them,  then 
let  us  go  to  Him  ourselves  with  them.  Let  us  make 
them  our  own.  Let  us  give  ourselves  in  heart  and 
soul  and  mind  and  strength  to  Him.  Ijct  us  go  to 
Him  for  the  life  which  He  alone  can  give,  for  the 
pardon  of  all  the  sinful  past,  for  the  light  of  the 
darkened  present,  for  the  hope  of  the  endless  future. 
Let  us  resolve  that,  while  many  are  falling  away,  and 
some  are  making  shipwreck  of  faith,  and  some  are 
tossed  to  and  fro  with  every  wind  of  doctrine,  and 
some  have  no  steadfastness  and  no  hope,  and  some 
are  without  God  in  the  world,  and  while  times  are 
changing  and  things  temporal  are  passing  away,  and 
things  eternal  are  hastening  on  and  drawing  near, 
it  shall  be  ours  to  cling  fast  to  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
the  chosen  of  God — to  serve  Him  in  health  and 
strength,  when  all  is  bright  and  joyous,  and  the 
powers  are  vigorous  and  unimpaired,  and  to  tnist 
Him  in  the  time  of  trouble  when  days  are  dark  and 
dreary,  and  to  believe  in  Him  to  the  saving  of  the 
soul  now  and  when  the  solemn  hour  of  departure  is 
at  hand.  There  is  no  other  friend  but  He  who  will 
not  fail  us  now.  There  is  no  other  friend  but  He 
whom  we  can  dare  to  trust  then  ;  for  He  alone  hath 


35  2  The  Christ  of  the  Other  Books,     lect.  viii. 

the  promise  of  tlie  life  that  now  is,  and  of  that 
which  is  to  come. 

Let  us  then  not  be  too  proud  or  too  cokl  or  too 
frivolous  to  adopt  the  conclusion  of  the  men  of 
Samaria — We  hiow  that  this  is  indeed  the  Christ, 
the  Saviour  of  the  World  ;'^  but  with  the  fixed 
assurance  that  what  is  thus  true  once  must  inevitably 
be  true  for  ever,  let  us  go  to  Jesus  ourselves,  with  the 
noble,  the  generous,  the  sublime  confession  of  Simon 
Peter,  and  say  to  Him,  as  the  heart-felt  utterance 
of  our  own  personal  conviction  and  unchanging 
faith.  We  believe,  and  are  sure,  that  thou  art  that 
Christ,  the  So?i  of  the  living  God? 

1  St.  John  iv.  42.  2  vi.  69. 


Itaque  Tu  Pater,  qui  luceni  visibUem  primitias  creaturce 
dedlsti,  et  luceni  Intellectualem  ad  fastigium  operum  tuorum  in 
faciem  hominis  inspirasti ;  Opus  hoc,  quod  h  tua  honitcde  pro- 
fectuin,  tuam  gloriam  repetit,  tuere  et  rege.  Tu  postquam  con- 
versus  es  ad  sp>ectandum  opera  quce  fecerunt  manus  tuce,  vidisti 
quod  omnia  essent  bona  vcdde  ;  et  requievisti.  At  homo  conversus 
ad  opera  quoe  fecerunt  manus  suee,  vidit  quod  omnia  essent  vanitas 
et  vexatio  spiritils  ;  nee  ullo  modo  requievit.  Quare  si  in  operi- 
bus  tuis  sudabimus,  fades  nos  visionis  tuce  et  Sabbati  tut  partici- 
pes.  Supplices  petimus,  ut  hoec  7nens  nobis  constet :  utque  novis 
eleemosynis  per  manus  nostras  et  aliorum,  quihus  eandem  men- 
tein  largieris,  familiam  humanam  dotatam  velis. 


1    1012  01131    1562 


-  "-  ^   -TV.  ' 


<>->) 


<?. 


%• 


>•  ■■/■  •.■  v'- 


,....  ::-,AVr 


